UK Film & TV Industry

Splintering off here to answer a few questions, from the Universal UK thread.

Matt N said:

I have a question for those more in the know about this.

If the UK film/scripted TV industry is declining, why are they building a massive film studio in Reading? Why have they recently opened a big expansion to Shepperton Studios in Surrey? Why have Sky recently opened a big new studio in Borehamwood in Hertfordshire? Why are they building another film studio in Bedfordshire (mentioned in one of the articles surrounding these rumours)?

Click to expand...

The UK film industry started booming at the beginning of the 2010s. The UK government started offering decent incentives for film and television companies to start filming here. Some studios were world class, others weren't up to scratch. For a while it was near on impossible to get studio space in the UK, because the rush to create high end content for streaming platforms was thick and fast. The studio projects you're talking about were conceptualised during this gold rush, they're so far down the road that they have to be completed. It's also important to note that all of the projects you've mentioned are financed by third party companies. The Hollywood / production studios themselves aren't building complexes here. Other companies are and they'll rent out the space.

What happened? Brexit and COVID and Truss. The impact of Brexit hasn't really been felt by the industry until this and last year, it could have been brushed off or conflated with the issues stemming from COVID. Visa backlogs make it incredibly difficult to get US and EU productions off the ground here, or talent in the first place. If you've got a tonne of money, booked studio space and plans to shoot here, you'll power on through until the production is over, but you certainly won't come back after it's finished.

COVID saw a lot of talented UK freelancers, which the industry survives on, go into other more stable lines of work. Smaller production houses shut up shop. A lot of kit was sold, a lot of people got out. We've yet to replace them, or provided the support network to get them back in.

Truss. Cost of living. It's not entirely all down to her, but shooting in the UK is now far more expensive than it ever has been before, and certainly more than in 2019. The tax incentives we're offering are not enough to counteract this financial deficit.

benpicko said:

Well not sure where you've heard that? Disney and Paramount shoot a lot here, Universal shoot a lot at Elstree, and Warner Bros still shoot a lot here too. All the major studios...

Click to expand...

All of the major studios shoot bits. Maybe a few films a year, certainly not as much as they do in Canada, Eastern Europe or the US state of Georgia, where pretty much every Marvel film is shot. The films that are currently under production here have been slated for the past few years, they've got contracts with studio space and professionals, but we're definitely seeing the end of this.

benpicko said:

Because it's not declining -- it was in a bad time due to the strikes, but everybody I know who was previously working on productions here are back at it currently and of course a lot of films were in preproduction that are still due to start again post-strikes.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is declining. The strikes were of course a contributing factor more recently, but the main issue is that there aren't many projects coming down the pipeline anymore. High end drams for streaming companies are expensive and the golden age of TV is coming to an end. We've started seeing spending being driven toward reality, documentary and entertainment formats, rather than the content that requires high end studio space. The only company who seems to be committed to filming high end TV series and giving them chance to flourish (not cancelling after a season, or never even airing them at all), is Apple and they're a tiny player.

jon81uk said:

TV studios seem to be closing down but film studios are being built, there are several under construction. I think TV is changing and there is a lot less focus on content made in studios, but due to the tax breaks the film industry is generally still growing in the UK.

But I doubt Universal/Comcast are building more studios as there is plenty of space already in the works.

Click to expand...

TV's been changing for a while, the BBC saw the writing on the wall with large studio spaces over a decade ago. Why have a large studio when you can green screen pretty much whatever you want out of a broom cupboard? - But yes, lots and lots of space in the works and a lot of it will remain empty.

GooseOnTheLoose said:

TV's been changing for a while, the BBC saw the writing on the wall with large studio spaces over a decade ago. Why have a large studio when you can green screen pretty much whatever you want out of a broom cupboard? - But yes, lots and lots of space in the works and a lot of it will remain empty.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is much TV space in the works, with BBC downsizing TV centre and moving most of their own content (like Childrens and Sport) to Salford and ITV closing the London Studios (and most of the content filmed there is now at TV Centre). Generally there will be a need for "traditional" TV studios where an audience is needed but it is now spread through TV Centre, Elstree, Pinewood, Riverside and Media City Salford. Don't think BBC uses much tiny green screen broom cupboard, but generally studio spaces are much smaller than they were before, the One Show studio is small compared to the old 1960s studios at TV Centre and the One Show space is now used for many different daytime TV shows and stuff. It does seem most of the space for live audiences is well used.

Whether the film/drama studios will get utilised I think is probably a complex topic, Disney (inc Marvel and Lucasfilm) are utilising Pinewood and Warner Bros owns Levesdon. Do the other big studios need a lot more space?

jon81uk said:

Whether the film/drama studios will get utilised I think is probably a complex topic, Disney (inc Marvel and Lucasfilm) are utilising Pinewood and Warner Bros owns Levesdon. Do the other big studios need a lot more space?

Click to expand...

Here's where it gets a bit more complex. The big streamers, and studios, also don't entirely produce their own content. In the case of Netflix, they don't actually have a production company. They commission, pay for and green light productions all of the time, but they don't actually do the shooting themselves. They consult, they shape, but ultimately it's third party production companies that do all of the filming. It's outsourced, you could say, these are the companies who would be renting studio space. This is also how the BBC now operate for drama, BBC Studios being a commercial arm and actually has to compete for the tender to make a programme for the broadcaster.

jon81uk said:

Don't think BBC uses much tiny green screen broom cupboard

Click to expand...

Pretty much all of BBC Sport is a green screen broom cupboard. They use "virtual studios" which look huge on your screen, but are really just very small with well thought out graphics.

GooseOnTheLoose said:

Here's where it gets a bit more complex. The big streamers, and studios, also don't entirely produce their own content. In the case of Netflix, they don't actually have a production company. They commission, pay for and green light productions all of the time, but they don't actually do the shooting themselves. They consult, they shape, but ultimately it's third party production companies that do all of the filming. It's outsourced, you could say, these are the companies who would be renting studio space. This is also how the BBC now operate for drama, BBC Studios being a commercial arm and actually has to compete for the tender to make a programme for the broadcaster.

Click to expand...

I think you are mixing up the TV and film discussion, when I was referencing Disney, Warner Bros and the other big studios I meant film studios utilising physical studio space.
I know most TV production is independent production companies and that has resulted in ITV making productions for the BBC now which I find wonderful.

GooseOnTheLoose said:

Pretty much all of BBC Sport is a green screen broom cupboard. They use "virtual studios" which look huge on your screen, but are really just very small with well thought out graphics.

Click to expand...

Yes but its not really a "broom cupboard" the studio is still often big enough to hold the 3-4 presenters and pundits, not a lot has changed in that respect. News and sport has always operated out of relatively small studio spaces.

jon81uk said:

I think you are mixing up the TV and film discussion, when I was referencing Disney, Warner Bros and the other big studios I meant film studios utilising physical studio space.

Click to expand...

Sorry, bad explanation on my part. What I meant was the studios themselves don't need the space, but the production companies who used them do, or rather did when the spaces were being planned to be built.

So my point was that there was no need for the commissioning studios to build their lwn studio space, as they would outsource to third party production companies who will film in third party studio spaces.

This studio space was needed, when it was planned. It's looking unlikely that it will be needed as much now. It seemed to follow the gold rush rule of economics, that usually those selling the pick axes are the only ones who win. Needless to say there was a big rush on pick axes so you could sell them to the gold diggers. Pick axes being studio space and gold diggers being production companies. The only ones who have really won in this instance is the original land owner and construction companies.

I’ve spent the last five months working in a green box, in an office building. Instead of proper galleries we’re in portacabins on the far side of the car park, with an OB truck providing the equipment.
But this is temporary, we should move in to “real” galleries next year. Only they won’t pay to soundproof the wall that butts on to the studio, so we will have to work in absolute silence.

There is no on site catering, nowhere within walking distance to go for lunch, and no cleaning staff at weekends... which means no toilet paper.

We’re not allowed to have any creative input without permission from some bigwig in New York. We’re not even allowed to move equipment six inches to create a more ergonomic workspace. Presenters, camera crew and floor managers are struggling to cope with the green void they now live in for 10 hours a day. And the “set” is rendered in Unreal Engine, and looks like a PS3 game.... when it doesn’t crash.

I don’t know anyone that says they like watching this uncanny valley virtual stuff, never mind working on it. But it’s all there is these days.
It’s the future, you know!

This used to be a fun job. The artistic craft we have spent decades perfecting has been killed by accountants. Plenty of us are thinking it’s time for a change of career.

EDIT: Sorry, this reads like it should belong in the “I feel down” topic!

Here's a question for you folks, would you consider films like Wonka or the Harry Potter series (where there is a large American company behind a mostly British production team). to be Hollywood films or British films or is it possible to be both?

I'd probably say both American and British really.
Potter more so towards British what with the author more or less demanding it was all British/Irish cast and filmed in the UK.

But then Star Wars films were shot in the UK with a large contingent of brits involved yet I'd immediately just say they were American.

DiogoJ42 said:

I’ve spent the last five months working in a green box, in an office building. Instead of proper galleries we’re in portacabins on the far side of the car park, with an OB truck providing the equipment.
But this is temporary, we should move in to “real” galleries next year. Only they won’t pay to soundproof the wall that butts on to the studio, so we will have to work in absolute silence.

There is no on site catering, nowhere within walking distance to go for lunch, and no cleaning staff at weekends... which means no toilet paper.

We’re not allowed to have any creative input without permission from some bigwig in New York. We’re not even allowed to move equipment six inches to create a more ergonomic workspace. Presenters, camera crew and floor managers are struggling to cope with the green void they now live in for 10 hours a day. And the “set” is rendered in Unreal Engine, and looks like a PS3 game.... when it doesn’t crash.

I don’t know anyone that says they like watching this uncanny valley virtual stuff, never mind working on it. But it’s all there is these days.
It’s the future, you know!

This used to be a fun job. The artistic craft we have spent decades perfecting has been killed by accountants. Plenty of us are thinking it’s time for a change of career.

EDIT: Sorry, this reads like it should belong in the “I feel down” topic!

Click to expand...

What's the product? Sounds pretty grim.

Thameslink Rail said:

Here's a question for you folks, would you consider films like Wonka or the Harry Potter series (where there is a large American company behind a mostly British production team). to be Hollywood films or British films or is it possible to be both?

Click to expand...

There British films, if they are filmed in the UK and the majority of the crew is British then they are British. A little like Harrods isn't owned by a British company but it's still British or anything similar where the parent company is foreign but the company operates nationally.

WillPS said:

What's the product? Sounds pretty grim.

Click to expand...

Probably best I don’t give any more detail on a public forum

Thameslink Rail said:

Here's a question for you folks, would you consider films like Wonka or the Harry Potter series (where there is a large American company behind a mostly British production team). to be Hollywood films or British films or is it possible to be both?

Click to expand...

According to BAFTA, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, for a film to be considered British:

A film "must have significant creative involvement by individuals who are British", including those who have been permanently resident in the UK for ten years or more. The candidates for nomination are the film's director(s), writer(s), and up to three producers; if none of these are British, the film will only be eligible in exceptional circumstances.

You can have a British cast and a predominantly British crew, but if your director, writer and producers are American you're not considered to be a British film.

I would argue that the cast is immaterial to a film's perceived nationality. Actors are asked to make us suspend disbelief, encourage us to believe that they're whomever they are portraying. They can be from wherever in the world, as long as they give a convincing performance.

For the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards (OSCARs), for a film to be considered for Best International Feature, it must be produced outside of the US and have at least 50% of it's dialogue in a language other than English. Thus it can have an American distributor and an entirely American cast, but as long as production takes place outside of the US, and they speak in another language for at least half of the film, it's considered "international".

Using Harry Potter as an example
All eight films with produced by David Heyman (UK), some of them were co-produced by David Barron (UK) and directed by David Yates (UK) so I guess that would be sufficient.

Thameslink Rail said:

Using Harry Potter as an example
All eight films with produced by David Heyman (UK), some of them were co-produced by David Barron (UK) and directed by David Yates (UK) so I guess that would be sufficient.

Click to expand...

Definitely, at the absolute least they're co-productions.

JAperson said:

A little like Harrods isn't owned by a British company

Click to expand...

Point of pedantic order. Harrods is owned by Harrods Ltd, which a limited liability company registered in England and Wales, it's literally a British company. The outright owner of the company, however, is the Qatar Investment Authority, which isn't British.

@DiogoJ42, you mentioned using green screens and Unreal Engine.

Reminds me if this that was posted recently by the huge tech channel Linus Tech Tips, Gamelinked being a side channel, where they explain them doing this exact thing.


From: https://youtu.be/_CxkmtBqGn8?si=2cAQaeyVd-2mqqam


I'm un convinced myself. The tech is OK. But I prefer traditional...

OBs were fun, but mega mega hours. Can't recommend the industry tbh from my experience of little pay and mega hours.

DistortAMG said:

@DiogoJ42, you mentioned using green screens and Unreal Engine.

Reminds me if this that was posted recently by the huge tech channel Linus Tech Tips, Gamelinked being a side channel, where they explain them doing this exact thing.


From: https://youtu.be/_CxkmtBqGn8?si=2cAQaeyVd-2mqqam


I'm un convinced myself. The tech is OK. But I prefer traditional...

Click to expand...

Yup, I am now an Ultimatte operator, on top of my usual duties. (Though with a dedicated control panel, rather than a laptop). I had to learn it very quickly. Can’t say I’m a fan. It’s a powerfull piece of kit, but it’s not what I joined the industry to do.

GooseOnTheLoose said:

Point of pedantic order. Harrods is owned by Harrods Ltd, which a limited liability company registered in England and Wales, it's literally a British company. The outright owner of the company, however, is the Qatar Investment Authority, which isn't British.

Click to expand...

Which was exactly my point Goose...

DistortAMG said:

@DiogoJ42, you mentioned using green screens and Unreal Engine.

Reminds me if this that was posted recently by the huge tech channel Linus Tech Tips, Gamelinked being a side channel, where they explain them doing this exact thing.


From: https://youtu.be/_CxkmtBqGn8?si=2cAQaeyVd-2mqqam


I'm un convinced myself. The tech is OK. But I prefer traditional...

Click to expand...

It has its place. BBC Election Night coverage makes great use of this tech, it's entertaining, informative and a bit of a novelty. When you're using it to reproduce a standard studio, however, it feels like a missed opportunity and not what the tech was intended for. Of course it has the upside of being able to quickly change sets, at least theoretically, so you can jam many more shows into the same physical staff and, added bonus, put the set department out of work... Yay cost-cutting.