10) Fifty Shades of Dissatisfaction: from Fan Fiction to Financial success, an analysis of Fifty Shades of Grey.

If you didn't know already, Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) has become a world-wide sensation and in incredibly successful IP, breaking numerous records! These include:

• Highest-grossing film of 2015, ranking in over $529 million worldwide!
• Highest-grossing film of 2015 in the UK!
• It's the third highest-grossing film ever directed by a female director (Sam Taylor-Johnson)!
• The biggest film launch by a female director!
• The fifth highest-grossing R-rated film of all time, worldwide!
• The highest-grossing R-rated film in the of all time in the UK!
• The fastest selling R-rated film in the US, according to ticket site Fandango!
• The film's distributor, Universal Studios, saw its highest ever opening weekend take in the UK, France, Russia and Brazil!
• The US Gross makes it the second biggest February opening ever!
• The trailer was the most viewed trailer on Youtube in 2014!
• The trailer is now the most viewed trailer on Youtube, in the site's entire history!
• The book on which the story is based, by E. L James, is the best-selling book in the UK, making over 5.3 million in sales!
• It created a 7.3% jump in sex-related products, a category including toys, videos and books!
• It's rated one of the worst rated films of 2015!

Wait, what? Repeat that last one... one of the worst rated films of 2015?? According to the film's Imdb page, ranking in a poor 4.2 score on the site, from over 110-thousand votes... So, how has this thing got so big (pun intended) if the majority of us thinks its a terrible film?

Let's find out!

Just in case you didn't already know, this film is an adaptation of the sadomasochistic erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey (2001) featuring a relationship between the virgin student Anatasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and the young rich businessman man, Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). This best selling book was created by the female author E. L James, who wrote the novel as Twilight (2008) fan fiction, but later changed the story to make it her own property. After it became such a literary success and books flew off shelves, with an estimate 5.3 million sales in the UK, filmmakers flocked to the author, offering to buy the rights to this goldmine! 

Heres the trailer, if you're really interested:

The problem with the success of the novel is that no one really seems to know exactly how it got so popular, as CNN explains "It's a formula that's been tried and tested in countless erotic novels in recent memory: A rich, handsome man charms a young innocent with lavish gifts and bold declarations of desire" (CNN, Grinberg, 2012) So, what was so different about this novel? This type of explicit content has been in our restricted section for many years before the release of this book, and What Culture has even written an entire article about works of erotica that came before FSOG! So what was so different with this novel?

Well, apart from the fact that sex really does sell, it it appears that FSOG simply got lucky, entering mainstream culture at the right time, surrounding itself with controversial media reports, creating a hype around the book. The novel appeared in numerous racy headlines and widespread of stories including Raymod Hodgson, 31, turned up at the home of his girlfriend Emma McCormick and squirted her with brown sauce because she had been reading Fifty Shades of Grey, and Woman Divorces Husband for Failing to Re-Enact 50 Shades. These headlines were enough to grab anyones attention, creating more and more interest in the novel, and so everyone was talking about it, perpetuating the sales.

With the prior success of the book, you could then argue that the success of the 2015 film adaptation could be due to a pre established audience. Although this might be the case, it's definitely worth mentioning that the enormous record breaking success of the film could be largely attributed to the FSOG marketing team and their well-thought strategy to attract large audiences. As  Graser from Variety explains, the "marketing team has been crafting the strategy for nearly three years, after conducting research on what its target audience would be interested in seeing" (Graser, 2015). In this sense, the team took into account what initially attracted audiences to the book, recreating these methods and developing them further. These marketing strategies included:

• Over a year prior to the release of the film, posters appeared using memorable quotes from the book, such as the phrase "Mr. Grey will see you now".
• The soundtrack was created with the aid popular artists, including Beyonce and The Rolling Stones, who are increasingly popular with wider audiences. 
• The video for the teaser trailer was premiered on Beyonce's Instragram, on the 24th of July 2014, allowing the marketing team to reach a wider audience via different media platforms.
• Jessica Simpson posed in her own FSOG shoot, posted to her Instagram.
• A music video for The Weekend, entitled "Earned It", featured lead actress, Dakota Johnson, in full dominatrix style.
• The marketing team also took advantage of the 71% female users of Pinterest, promoting the film via extensive photo boards on the site.
• The actor's were often featured on Television shows over the world, promoting the film in advance to different cultures and audiences.
• Segments on Television shows, featuring raunchy themes from the film, were common occurrence, such as This Morning's controversial Bondage for Beginners segment.

With all of this in mind, Fifty Shades of Grey was geared up for success, with a huge following on different media platforms, such as Facebook's official page having more than 8.5 million likes. 

So what went wrong with the ratings?

It appears that the audiences who previously were fans of the novels were disappointed with the lack of erotica within the film. Although still rated R, the film had appeared to be softened down to accommodate wider audience's tastes, as Universal "knew that the S&M elements would be considered too taboo for some moviegoers and most licensing partners, who typically steer clear of R-rated properties" (Graser, 2015). So, the book's established audiences had fallen in love with the book due to its heavily explicit content, and they had gone to watch an adaptation of the story which was softcore. In fact, the film has been further criticised due to delayed gratification, as the first sex scene within the film happens after 40 minutes, according to the Independant.

Nonetheless, despite these critical acclaims, there is no doubt that this film is a financial success for the entertainment industry, as they have discovered the potential for female audiences who have a hunger for raunchy sex stories. With this in mind, it's likely that this will mean a change for the film industry, as we will see more explicit R-rated films geared towards the female audience. Universal also owns the rights to the next two books in the Fifty Shades trilogy, and although they are still due to confirm whether these books will be adapted for film, it's pretty much guaranteed they will do so considering the enormous financial success of this film.

References and Bibliography:

50 Shades Of Grey Teaser (Beyonce Instagram). 2014. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Arnett, George. 'Record-Breaking Opening Weekend For Fifty Shades Of Grey Film'. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

BBC News,. 'Marvel TV Shows To Debut On Netflix'. N.p., 2013. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Bloom, Charlie, and Linda Bloom. 'What's So Special About Fifty Shades Of Grey? It's Not Just About The Sex'. The Huffington Post. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Bondage For Beginners | This Morning. 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Earned It (Fifty Shades Of Grey) (From The "Fifty Shades Of Grey" Soundtrack). 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Facebook,. 'Fifty Shades Of Grey'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Fandango,. 'Fandango'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Fifty Shades Of Grey. Sam Taylor-Johnson, 2015. film.

Graser, Marc. ''Fifty Shades Of Grey' Marketing: More Sizzle Than Sex'. Variety. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Grinberg, Emanuella. 'Explaining 'Fifty Shades' Wild Success - CNN.Com'. CNN. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

IMDb,. 'Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015)'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

James, E. L. Fifty Shades Of Grey. Print.

Mail Online,. '50 Shades Of Divorce: Wife 'Inspired' By Erotic Book Says Husband Failed To Meet Her Expectations'. N.p., 2012. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Mail Online,. 'Fifty Shades Of Grey Has More Bad Reviews But Dakota Johnson Impresses'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

McKay, Hollie. 'Will The Success Of 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' Lead To More Raunchy Flicks?'. Fox News. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

mirror,. 'Fifty Shades Of Brown Sauce: Reader Attacked With Sauce By Angry Boyfriend'. N.p., 2012. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Parsons, Tony. 'We've All Been Spanked: How Fifty Shades Of Grey Became The Most Successful Book Ever... And What That Says About Us'. mirror. N.p., 2012. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Pinterest,. 'Pinterest'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Singh, Anita. '50 Shades Of Grey Is Best-Selling Book Of All Time'. Telegraph.co.uk. N.p., 2012. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

The Independent,. 'Fifty Shades Of Grey Cinema Goers Are Getting 'Restless', But Not For The Reason You Think'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Twilight. Catherine Hardwicke, 2008. film.

Universal Pictures,. Fifty Shades Of Grey Trailer. 2014. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

WhatCulture.com,. 'Before Fifty Shades Of Grey: 10 Classic Works Of Erotic Literature'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Wikipedia,. 'Fifty Shades Of Grey (Film)'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Youtube.com,. 'Youtube'. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Money Gif
Confused Gif
Waiting Gif

9) IPs Sold Seperately: A look into the expansion of the Marvel Universe.

In popular news this week, the newest expansion to the Marvel Universe, Agent Carter (2015), premiered it's final episode of its first season on ABC! 

This new series has been met with overall positive reviews, scoring a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and acheiving with an average rating of 7.9/10.

First premiering on January 6th this year, the spinoff follows the character of Peggy (Hayley Atwell), exploring her life as a spy in 1940's America, where she balances her administrative work and ongoing secret missions, but whilst also dealing with the grief of losing her boyfriend, Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans). The character first appeared in Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), but the series was inspired by her role in Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (2013), a short drama featured on the Iron Man 3 DVD (2013). This short clip was met with much interest and approval from Marvel fans, and so it was agreed to expand her story in a new adaptation series, sharing the continuity with other characters within the franchise. Here's a preview of the clip:

;width:560;wrap:false;" width="560" height="315" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

With Agent Carter, Marvel now has two series on air, as it joins Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (2013), the first live-action franchise spinoff directed by Joss Whedon. It's worth mentioning that when Whedon's series premiered on ABC in September nearly 2 years ago, it achieved the highest ratings for a US drama debut in over four years, becoming a great success for Marvel! Now, Agent Carter appears to be following it its footsteps thanks to high ratings, whilst also serving as "a bridge between season between season beaks in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, with their storylines eventually intertwined" (Beaumont-Thomas, 2014).

If that wasn't enough, it's also been revealed that Marvel has a new partnership with the online-streaming website, Netflix, to create even more spin-offs for the franchise. Beginning with Daredevil (2015), Netflix will add four 13-episode series to the network, with characters including Iron First, Jessica Jones and Luke cage. Marvel has explained that the reason behind this is so that fans can enjoy the shows "how and when they want", with the new series expanding "the narrative possibilities of on-demand television" (as cited in BBC News, 2013). So, this is definitely good news for Marvel fans as they appear to have unlimited shows at their disposal!

But this leads me to question... Why? Why is Marvel exploiting their IPs so much, and what effect is this having on the Industry?

It's obvious that money doesn't seem to be a driving force here, as the franchise is notoriously financially successful, generating millions of dollars from each of its films alone (see my second post for evidence). Nonetheless, it's worth mentioning that the existence of a well-developed world can introduce the possibility for merchandise and more branding, in the form of new toys, novels, games and more. These well-developed worlds "invite fans to collect and find tokens of their beloved world" (Smith, 2009) and in turn, generates more and more money for the franchise. If we look at the Star Wars franchise for an example, its estimated to have accumulated over 9 billion dollars from it's merchandise alone!

But it although these figures are astonishing, it's most probable that Marvel are creating so many spinoffs as a strategy to create transmedia narratives. In other words, these new series create a backdrop of narrative timelines and in turn, they create endless narrative possibilities and opportunities for new adventures across their ficitonal Universe. This is evident with Marvel's phrase, #itsallconnected, often used on social media. White also adds "That's the phase Marvel uses... to remind viewers that everything they're doing, the films and the network TV shows, all play off each other!" (White, 2014), and so this diverse transmedia storytelling opens up fantastic new worlds for effective play.

In this sense, transmedia narratives  are important to create stories within for the Marvel Universe, not of the characters. So, although these series and films are based around names such as Agent Carter, Iron Man and Captain America, it's the world in which they inhabit that has the true character. Scholar Geoffrey Long explains this further: 

"When developing a narrative that's meant to extend across multiple media forms, the world must be considered a primary character of its own, because many transmedia narratives aren't the story of one character at all, but the story of the world. Special attention must be paid to developing a stage upon which multiple storylines (often in different media types) can unfurl, and ever story must maintain the consistency of that world" (Long, as cited in Smith, 2009)

With this in mind, its obvious that this expansive hyperdiagetic world gives Marvel the ability to extend the Universe in any way they like, meaning that it can continue to exist for many years to come. In this way, many of their IP characters can die out, grow old or disappear, making way for fresh new narratives, giving them the ability to continue to exploit as many properties for as long as they want. 

This is certainly a strategy for Marvel, as they revealed in a statement when discussing the Netflix spinoff shows, "The epic will unfold over multiple years of original programming, taking Netflix members deep into the gritty world of heroes and villains of Hell's Kitchen, New York" (as cited in The Guardian, 2014). Furthermore, Marvel's studio president, Kevin Feige, is said to have a master plan that actually continues up to 2028, as they have the option of 8,000 comic book copyright characters to choose from. This revelation comes from Business Week, who landed a conversation with Bob Iger, Disney's CEO:

"Much of Marvel's success can be attributed to Kevin Feige. He has a special understanding of comics, fans, superheroes, and narrative. He concedes that Marvel won't recover the film rights to Spider-Man or the X-Men anytime soon but says Marvel has something more valuable: a universe of thousands of characters it controls entirely. That means Kevin Feige can produce an unlimited number of films with interweaving story lines and characters, creating a vast audience for almost any Marvel movie.... There's a map of films reaching far into the next decade on the wall of Kevin Feige's office."

So with this in mind, Marvel's spinoffs are definitely part of a strategy to continue the franchise into the far future, which will continually shift depending on the demand for a character. It appears that their extensive list of IPs is definitely something to be envious about, as with over 8,000 copyrighted characters, they have a bank of properties to last more than a lifetime! So, Marvel has endless options for the future of their IPs.

(Obligatory image showing the succes of the Marvel Universe)

Refrences and Bibliography:

'Agent Carter'. ABC, 2015. TV programme.

'Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D'. ABC, 2013. TV programme.

BBC News,. 'Marvel TV Shows To Debut On Netflix'. N.p., 2013. Web. 24 Jan. 2015.

Beaumont-Thomas, Ben. 'Marvel Announce Captain America Spin-Off TV Show Agent Carter'. the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Captain America: The First Avenger. Joe Johnston, 2011. film.

Facebook.com,. '‪#‎Itsallconnected‬ | Facebook'. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Hills, Matt. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Iron Man 3. Shane Black, 2013. DVD.

Leonard, Devin. 'The Pow! Bang! Bam! Plan To Save Marvel, Starring B-List Heroes'.Businessweek.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter. Louis D’Esposito, 2013. film.

Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter Clip. http://marvel.com/videos/watch/2814: Louis D’Esposito, 2013. video.

Netflix.com,. 'Netflix - Watch TV Shows Online, Watch Movies Online'. N.p., 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Rottentomatoes.com,. 'Marvel's Agent Carter: Season 1'. N.p., 2015. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Smith, Aaron. 'Transmedia Storytelling In Television 2.0 » The Art Of Worldbuilding'.Sites.middlebury.edu. N.p., 2009. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

The Guardian,. 'Marvel Announce Captain America Spin-Off TV Show Agent Carter'. N.p., 2014. Web. 6 Jan. 2015.

White, Brett. 'Working Agent Coulson Into The Marvel Netflix-Verse - Spinoff Online - TV, Film, And Entertainment News Daily'. Spinoff Online - TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily. N.p., 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2015.

Images and Gifs:

Agent Carter Poster Agent Carter Gif
Agent Coulson Gif
Star Wars Dance Gif
Marvel Poster
Avengers Mean Girls Gif

8) Who holds power in the industries? Taking a closer look at the active spectators uniting against the industry!

So far, it's obvious from my previous entries that Intellectual Property laws play a key role within the industry, as they essentially decide who is allowed to create an adapation and how they create it, depending on who owns the rights. But saying this, after the Marvel and Sony incident, its obvious that fans must have some influence in how strictly we follow these IP laws, especially if the interest of the fans outweigh the legalities. With this in mind, I'm lead to this next question: how much control do fans have over an Intellectual Property?

It initially appears that fans opinions can actually have a key role to play within the current industry, as they are dedicated and active spectators during the production of franchise adaptations. In other words, if their opinion is voiced enough, they will be heard by the filmmakers. This was the case with Marvel and Sony incident, as audience's gratifications were highly regarded throughout the entire ordeal. Unlike many other Intellectual Property disputes, money wasn't a driving force behind this new alliance, as the recent Spiderman films were still a big box office hit, (as mentioned in my second post). Instead, these studios decided to collaborate in order to create a new direction for Spiderman, as it was agreed that a reboot was necessary due to the critical decline of the iconic character, and because audiences had been speculating for years whether or not Spiderman should be part of the Marvel Universe. So, as we all now know, this long battle ended in favour of the frans, giving them an influence over studios and essentially overruling the basis of Intellectual Property Laws.

But in the news this week, events could actually contradict this conclusion, as the power of the fan could be once again up for debate. A casting announcement for the new Dreamwork's live-action adaptation of Ghost in the Shell (2017) has caused a lot of tension and uproar its fan community, as they are not happy with Scarlett Johansson starring as the leading role. The original manga version is set in Japan, with all of the characters being Japanese, and so fans have accused Hollywood of "white washing" the forthcoming US remake by casting Johansson. As Ollie Barder from writes:

"...people in Hollywood need to get their act together when it comes to dealing with manga and anime related properties. It was obvious to anyone who understands the host work that Scarlett Johansson was an incredibly poor choice." (Barder, 2015).

In an angered response, fans have petitioned over the casting choice via the Petition Site, which currently holds over twenty-nine thousand signatures, calling for Dreamworks to replace her with an actor of Asian origin. It's also not clear how much the studio is planning to alter the original story, but as they acquired the IP rights to produce a live-action film adaptation back in 2008, they ultimately have the freedom to change as much as they please. It's also worth mentioning that the director lined up for the chair is Rupert Sanders, of Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), and so fans are already gearing up for disappointment after the Snow White adaptation was considered a failure by both fans and critics alike (see Imdb for reviews).

Whether anything comes from this petition remains to be seen, but its obvious that there is an overall sense of displeasure throughout this fandom's community. So far Dreamworks hasn't offered any comments on the matter, showing no sign of recasting the role anytime soon, and ultimately ignoring the fan's cries. For now it appears that the control of the Intellectual Property is entirely in the hands of Dreamworks and so it's essentially a situation of 'what they say goes'. It's worth mentioning that the reasons behind Dreamwork's controversial casting decision could be down to the fact Johansson is a likely persona to attract a wider audience, and thus ensuring a box office hit. The "US star has risen following standout turns in Lucy and Marvel Studio's Avengers series of superhero films" (Child, 2015), and so the studio is ignoring the fans on the basis of star power.

There are other numerous examples of fans lacking power over the industry, such recent famous examples including Michael Bay's producer decision to change the backstory of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles mythology, despite an online backlash of protests by fans. In a statement prior to the release of the film, he explained:

"These turtles [in the reboot] are from an alien race, and they're going to be tough, edgy, funny, and completely lovable" (as cited in screenrant, 2013)

This new creative decision to alter the history of the franchise within the upcoming adaptation was met with much disapproval from fans, and so it seemed the film was on the rocks with the fanbase. Despite this, Bay dismissed their cries, responding with "we are just building a richer world" (as cited in screenrant, 2013), and considering the negative reviews of the film, it could be argued that Bay should have listened to the fans of the franchise...

Another famous example of fans lack of power over an IP, was during the online petition to remove Ben Affleck from the role as Batman, in Zack Snyder's upcoming adaptation of Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016). Although almost 100,000 signatures were recorded to the site, the petition as dismissed by Warner Bros. Studios and the Daredevil (2003) actor still remains on the cast list, according to Imdb.

The most recent example of a similar incident was the petition against the Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) opening weekend, which drew criticisms from different organisations across the US, including feminists, religious groups and parents alike. Although this didn't necessarily the involve fans of the bestselling sadomasochistic novel, more than 60,000 individuals signed the petition in an attempt to boycott the film, arguing that the Valentines release date used "...a romantic holiday to promote a movie abuse and degradation" (as cited in Fox News). The movement pledged to take a stand for true love and true romance by trying change the release date and by avoiding seeing the film in an attempt to make 50 Shades of Grey the worst box-office flop in history. Needless to say, the petition itself was a flop, with distributors ignoring the petition and the is film currently becaming a box office success!

With all this in mind, we live in a current age of signing online petitions and having keyboard wars across social media, which really don't make a difference. These petitions keep appearing every day, becoming a modern trend that isn't showing any signs of stopping, and although they might appear to give the fans hope to control the hegemonic media industry, it's obvious that this certainly isn't the case. Unfortunately, the control and power of Intellectual Properties remains in the hands of the profitable studios that own them, and so it's ultimately up to them whether they want to listen to the fans or not.

References and Bibliography:

'‘Spider-Man’ Is Officially Joining The Marvel Cinematic Universe!'. Intellectual Properties in Current Film & Television 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Barder, Ollie. 'Fans Petition Dreamworks Over 'Ghost In The Shell' Movie Casting'. Forbes. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice. Zack Snyder. film.

Change.org,. 'Warner Brothers: Remove Ben Affleck As Batman/Bruce Wayne In The Superman/Batman Movie.'. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Child, Ben. 'Dreamworks Accused Of 'Whitewashing' Ghost In The Shell By Casting Scarlett Johansson'. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Daredevil. Mark Steven Johnson, 2003. film.

Fifty Shades Of Grey. Sam Taylor-Johnson, 2015. film.

Ghost In The Shell. Rupert Sanders. film.

Girdusky,. ''Fifty Shades' Is Not Going To Ruin Your Daughters'. Fox News. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

IMDb,. 'Snow White And The Huntsman (2012)'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

IMDb,. 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)'. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

'Let's Start At The Very Beginning, A Very Good Place To Start... By Looking At The Facts And Figures!'. Intellectual Properties in Current Film & Television 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

LifeSiteNews,. 'Say No To Abuse. Boycott 50 Shades Of Grey, The Movie: Sign The Petition'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Lucy. Luc Besson, 2014. DVD.

Schaefer, Sandy. 'Michael Bay Says No Alien Origin Change For ‘Ninja Turtles’ Reboot'. Screen Rant. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Snow White And The Huntsman. Rupert Sanders, 2012. film.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Jonathan Liebesman, 2014. film.

The Avengers. Joss Whedon, 2012. film.

Thepetitionsite.com,. 'Petition: Dreamworks: Don’T Whitewash Japanese Characters!'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Jeremy Renner Gif
Dancing Spiderman Gif
Snow White Gif
Scarlett Gif
Ben Affleck Gif
Shut Up I'm rich gif

7) ‘Spider-Man’ Is Officially Joining The Marvel Cinematic Universe!

This week the news was all about the Sony and Marvel alliance!

Here's a video with my thoughts:

Thanks for watching!

6) An IP dispute wouldn't be complete without mentioning Disney...

In the news this week, tabloids around the world are reporting that the UN goodwill ambassador and former Harry Potter actress, Emma Watson, has been cast as the latest Disney princess!

After posting the announcement on her Facebook page, its been confirmed that she will be playing the character of Belle, in a Disney live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. The reboot of the 1991 animated classic is also due to be directed by Bill Condon, whose name may sound familiar to you, as he as he is also directing Mr. Holmes (2015), mentioned in my previous post! 

Disney released their animated of version of the then public domain, La Belle et la Bête (1756), over two decades ago, which became a box-office hit, grossing more than $375 million worldwide. To add to this success, the animated feature was also made into a hit Broadway musical, nominated Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and 3 of its songs were nominated for Oscars, with the theme song, Beauty and the Beast taking the title.

But this newest adaptation, scheduled for release sometime in 2016, has raised a few eyebrows. Disney is now considered as refusing to take risks in order to finding new bankable properties, as the studio is just "dipping into its past and reimagining its back catalogue" (Grafton-Green, 2014). Although its common knowledge that this is not the first time Disney has remade some of its animated classics, the first example being 101 Dalmations (1996), the issue of Disney's live-action remake trend has arisen due to the fact that this is the fourth remake produced by the studio since 2014.

The first is the recent adaptation of Sleeping Beauty (1959), Maleficent (2014), released in cinemas worldwide last summer. Starring Angelina Jolie, its considered to be what Wicked (2003) is to The Wizard of Oz (1939), telling the story from the perspective of the antagonist. The film has been a notable success for the studio, despite its mixed reviews, as it earned an astonishing $750 million worldwide, making it the third-highest grossing film of 2014.

The second is the reimagining of Cinderella (1950), starring Downtown Abbey's (2010) Lily James and renowned actress Helena Bonham Carter. Although its due for release in March this year, the film has already smashed a few records when a two-minute trailer was premiered last November. Within 24 hours, the video obtained a massive 4.2 million hits and over 33 million Facebook views, according to The Independent.

Third and finally (for now), filming has already begun for The Jungle Book (2016), a new live-action-with-CGI-and-3D-adaptation of the 1991 Oscar-nominated animation. Directed by Jon Favreau and a cast list containing A-list celebrities, such as Christopher Walken, Scarlett Johanssen, Billy Murray and Idris Elba, its scheduled for release in April of 2016. It's also worth mentioning that the film will contain classic songs from the original movie, including Academy Award nominated The Bare Necessities, which will be sung Bill Murray. 

So why is all of this considered an IP issue?

Remakes. Remakes have a bad reputation, as they rarely live up to the original. There are a few exceptions to this rule of course, with Martin Scorsese's The Departed (2006) and The Coen Brother's True Grit (2010) being notable examples, but its common knowledge that remakes are often a big flop. Too often, Hollywood "will simply bank on the success of its predecessor in the hopes of attracting audiences" (Box Office Scoop; n.d), and it appears that Disney has jumped on the bandwagon of this remake trend. The studio is using their own animated IPs as bait, in an attempt to attract the familiar childhood culture audiences, telling them the same timeless story in a different way. 

Neither Maleficent or even 101 Dalmatians was lavished with praise, achieving a dissapointing 38% and 49% on Rotten Tomatoes, so why do they bother? Well, with Maleficent as a great example, these live-action films were a great success, commercially speaking, ranking in millions of dollars each time they arrived at our cinema screens!

So, revisiting films "that have formed an important part of so many childhoods is dangerous, if probably wildly lucrative, ground" (Grafton-Green, 2014), but so as long as these continue to attract huge audiences and prove to be a great financial success, there is no reason to think that Disney is going to stop this trend anytime soon...

But we mustn't begin hating on Disney just yet, as there are a few original Disney IP's due for release this year including, Inside Out (2015), Tomorrow Land (2015) and The Good Dinosaur (2015)! Whether or not these become as successful as the remakes, that's another matter, and I suppose we'll just have to wait to find out... 

But if we look at the issue from another perspective, it's also worth mentioning that this new remake trend might not necessarily be a bad thing. By introducing these new stories to more generations, it "leaves room for new vision and inventions" (Grafton-Green, 2014), spurring new creative ideas in the minds of the little ones. After all, IP laws have always been designed to leak at the sides, "encouraging the creation of art and ideas, so they can be consumed and built upon" (Decherney, 2012), and in this way, remakes allow us to learn from other people's creative mistakes and invent our our adaptations... 

So, remakes are vital to the future of the industry... whether you like them or not!

References and Bibliography

101 Dalmations. Disney, 1996. film.

Beauty And The Beast. Disney, 1991. film.

Boxofficescoop.com,. '15 Remakes So Terrible They Were A Disgrace To The Originals | Box Office Scoop'. N.p., 2015. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Cinderella. Disney, 1950. film.

Cinderella. Disney, 2015. film.

Decherney, Peter. Hollywood's Copyright Wars. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Print.

Denham, Jess. 'Cinderella Trailer Breaks Disney Record For Most Online Views In 24 Hours'. The Independent. N.p., 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

'Downtown Abbey'. ITV, 2010. TV programme.

Gilkyson, Terry. The Bare Necessities. Disney, 1967. Soundtrack.

Grafton-Green, Patrick. 'From Cinderella To The Jungle Book, Disney Plans Live-Action Remakes Of Animated Classics - But Can They Recapture The Old Magic?'. The Independent. N.p., 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Inside Out. Disney, 2015. film

Leprince de Beaumont, Jeanne-Marie. La Belle Et La Bête. France: N.p., 1756. Print.

Maleficent. Disney, 2014. DVD.

Menken, Alan, and Howard Ashman. Beauty And The Beast. Disney, 1991. Soundtrack.

Mr Holmes. Bill Condon, 2015. film.

Rottentomatoes.com,. '101 Dalmatians'. N.p., 2015. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Rottentomatoes.com,. 'Maleficent'. N.p., 2015. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Sleeping Beauty. Disney, 1959. film.
Tomorrow Land. Disney, 2015. film

The Departed. Martin Scorsese, 2006. film.

The Good Dinosaur. Disney, 2015. film

The Jungle Book. Disney. film.

The Jungle Book. Disney, 1967. film.

The Wizard Of Oz. Victor Fleming, 1939. film.

True Grit. Coen Brothers, 2010. film.

Watson, Emma. 'Emma Watson - I'm Finally Able To Tell You... That I Will... | Facebook'.Facebook.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Beauty and the Beast Gif
Beauty and the Beast Theme Song
Maleficent Gif
Disney's Cinderella Trailer
The Bare Necessities Song
Cruella Devil Gif
Haters Gonna Hate Gif

5) Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Intellectual Property (Part II)

Since the creation of Sherlock Holmes over a century ago, it appears that he has been caught up in a web of ownership transfers and disputes so complicated, that even his enemy Moriarty wouldn't have wished this upon him..

To summarise past events, after the Doyle's death in 1930, the ownership of his literary properties passed down to his 3 children. After this, these rights were bought and resold to other owners including The Royal Bank of Scotland, American producer Sheldon Reynolds, and then eventually back to Conan's daughter, Jean, in 1981. This heir was very tolerant of any sequels and adaptations of the franchise, licensing off her father's characters to films including Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) and Without A Clue (1988), until she gave the copyrights to the Royal National Instititute of Blind People after her death in 1997. But despite this kind gesture, the institute sold back the rights to the Doyle's estate, who ultimately made it into a family-owned company. As a reminder, by acquiring this IP, it allowed them to perform certain acts in relation to the content, such as such as "transfer of ownership, in whole or in part [and] grant of licenses to others to allow them to carry out certain acts in relation to the subject-matter of the right" (Bainbridge, 2002), which essentially allowed them to generate revenue from the value of the the detective. 

So, it appears that Sherlock Holmes is as complicated as some of his famous stories, and this chapter doesn't stop there. Do I still have your attention?

In recent Sherlock IP news, a series of events took place regarding a copyright dispute between fan author Leslie Klinger and the Conan estate, which ultimately declared who should earn from each successful IP adaptation, such as BBC's Sherlock and Elementary. According to sources, Klinger created a book, In the company of Sherlock Holmes (2014), an anthology compiled of original and new Sherlock Holmes stories. Soon after, she reported being threatened by the Conan estate, who claimed that they had exclusive rights over the Sherlock franchise, allowing them to apply penalties of infringement, obtaining license fees and suppress any unauthorised publications. For this reason, the estate threatened to sue Klinger and her publishers if a licensing fee of $5000 wasn't paid. These threats were also considered as a form of bullying in the eyes of Klinger, as she received the following statement from the heirs:

“If you proceed instead to bring out Study in Sherlock II [the original title of In the Company of Sherlock Holmes] unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and similar retailers. We work with those compan[ies] routinely to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes from their offerings, and will not hesitate to do so with your book as well,” (as cited in The Guardian, 2014)

Klinger refused to be dissuaded, responding by creating the #FreeSherlock campaign and filing a lawsuit against the estate. Her case "sought judicial declaration that most of the stories and characters in the Holmes canon were old enough that they belonged to public domain" (Gardner, 2013), explaining that the umbrella of protection had expired on all but about 10 of Doyle's stories. In contrast, the heirs attempted to raise a contradictory argument, explaining that as Holmes is a complex character who was developed over time, "it was impossible to dismantle the detective's personality into both in- and out-of-copyright parts." (Gardner, 2013), and so they asserted a license was needed, ignoring Klinger's claims.

So, how have other companies found the freedom to create their Sherlock adaptations whilst dealing with this fierce opposition? Well, as trademark specialist Michael Alge points out ‘It is likely that... the recent projects would have been produced under licence from a trademark owner. Any such licences would also likely include a structure that permits the licensee to distribute and sell pre-recorded DVDs of the films or TV series in question, and to sell related merchandising spinoffs.’ (New Legal Review, 2014). Indeed, the heirs claimed that they had previously granted licenses to high-profile, well-established projects, such as BBC's Sherlock, CBS's Elementary and the Warner Bros films by Guy Ritchie. This point was made to prove that these superior companies also regarded the Doyle heirs "official executors" and as "as a crucial source of IP Rights" (New Legal Review, 2014). 

But eventually, to the delight of fans around the world, Sherlock Holmes and his companions were declared public domain, free for all to use after the courts ruled in favour of Klinger. The judge decided that "...once work enters the public domain it cannot be appropriated as private (intellectual) property,' and even the most creative of legal theories cannot trump this tenet," (Gardner, 2013). This meant that from now on, no company such as the BBC, Warner Bros and CBS, was obliged to pay a fee to the estate, and the success of their IP is entirely theirs!

The court also noted that the estate was not seeking to protect the Sherlock Holmes stories, but rather to simply stop any story about the detective being published without payment to the estate. So now, in the words of Leslie Klinger: “Holmes and Watson belong to the world, not to some distant relatives of Arthur Conan Doyle." (as cited in Rimmer, 2013) 

It’s elementary...

Although many Sherlock adaptations have been a success, it's worth mentioning that having a strict control over an IP could have had detriment effect on the franchise- as it would ultimately discouraged creativity. Scholars explain that the success of this court ruling has given other artists, not only high profile studios, a greater incentive to "create other works inspired by [Sherlock], because they won’t have to pay a license fee to do so." (Posner, as cited in Gardner, 2013). With this in mind, these events were vital to the future of the Film and Television industry, as it will allow the franchise to expand into more and more adaptations like never before.

So what can I learn from all of this? Well, this answers my previous question of who actually owns Sherlock Holmes, the world’s most repackaged IP? I can confirm that no one single entity holds full control and ownership over Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock, and each company, including BBC's Sherlock, will have generated their own valuable IP rights, allowing them to exploit their own works in any way the see fit... as long as they do so without copying each other. Whether or not an adaptation is better than another, that's a story for another day, but for now we can all agree (apart from the Doyle estate) that Sherlock belongs to the public. This famous detective has been added to a "storehouse of cultural ideas" (Decherney, 2012; p.4) and is there to stay... 

References and Bibliography:

Bainbridge, David I. Intellectual Property. Harlow, England: Longman, 2002. Print.

Baxter, Joseph. 'What Sherlock Holmes Looks Like As An Old Man'. Cinemablend.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.

Campbell, Tina. 'New Sherlock Is Happening And Here Are The Pictures'. Metro. N.p., 2015. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Chen, Jonathan. 'New Image Of Ian Mckellan As Older Sherlock Holmes In Mr. Holmes'.pastemagazine.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.

Crossmap.com,. 'Sherlock Holmes 3 Release Date And Casting: Sherlock Holmes 3 Won't Have A Dr. Watson?'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Cullin, Mitch. A Slight Trick Of The Mind. New York: Nan A. Talese, 2005. Print.

Durrani, Arif. 'Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Helps BBC Worldwide Return £173.8M To BBC - Media News - Media Week'. Mediaweek.co.uk. N.p., 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

'Elementary'. CBS, 2012. TV programme.

Facebook,. 'Mr. Holmes'. N.p., 2015. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Fifth Estate. Bill Conden, 2013. film.

Free Sherlock!,. 'Free Sherlock!'. N.p., 2013. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

Gardner, Eriq. 'Conan Doyle Estate Loses Appeal Over 'Sherlock Holmes' Rights'. The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 2014. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Glenza, Jessica. 'Sherlock Lives In Public Domain, US Court Rules In Case Of The Heckled Brand'. the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Hills, Matt. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

IMDb,. 'Mr. Holmes (2015)'. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.

IMDb,. 'Sherlock (TV Series 2010– )'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers. New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.

King, Laurie R, and Leslie S Klinger. In The Company Of Sherlock Holmes. Print.

King, Laurie R, Leslie S Klinger, and C. Alan Bradley. A Study In Sherlock. Scottsdale, AZ: Poisoned Pen Press, 2011. Print.

Langshaw, Mark. ''Young Sherlock Holmes' Remake In The Works'. Digital Spy. N.p., 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Lewis, Lisa A. The Adoring Audience. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Lopera, Hernan Ruiz. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Mr. Holmes. Bill Conden, 2015. film.

New Legal Review,. 'Baker Street Variations: The IP Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes'. N.p., 2014. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Pearson, Roberta E, and Anthony Neil Smith. Storytelling In The Media Convergence Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.

Rimmer, Matthew. 'Free Sherlock Holmes: The Copyright Battle Of Baker Street'. The Conversation. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Rottentomatoes.com,. 'Sherlock: Season 1'. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

'Sherlock'. BBC, 2010. TV programme.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows. Guy Ritchie, 2011. film.

Sherwin, Adam. 'Legal Thriller Looms As Sherlock Takes His Caseload To New York'. The Independent. N.p., 2012. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Stein, Louisa Ellen, and Kristina Busse. Sherlock And Transmedia Fandom. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2012. Print.

The Economist,. 'Who Owns Sherlock Holmes?'. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

The Hollywood Reporter,. 'Sherlock Holmes: Judge Declares Popular Detective In Public Domain'. N.p., 2013. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.

Vanderburgh, George A et al. [The Universal Sherlock Holmes]. [Toronto, Ont.]: Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, 1995. Print.

VanderSchuit, John. 'See Ian Mckellen As Old Sherlock In 'Mr. Holmes' - Craveonline'. CraveOnline. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Without A Clue. Thom Eberhardt, 1988. film.

Witkin, Robert W. Adorno On Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Yoon, Rita. 'Judge Posner Solves Sherlock Holmes Copyright Case - Intellectual Property - United States'. Mondaq.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Young Sherlock Holmes. Barry Levinson, 1985. film.

Images:

The 3 Sherlocks Banner
Robert Down Jr taken from blog
Mr Holmes Photograph
Sir Ian McKellan gif taken from Imgur
Benedict Cumberbatch taken from google search
Elementary gif taken from google search
Robert Down Jr Sleeping gif
Sherlock and Anderson gif
Sherlock Jumping gif

Jemermy Brett gif