Nollywood’s New Power Play: How Yoruba Filmmakers Are Reshaping the Industry Through Film Villages
Nollywood’s New Power Play: How Yoruba Filmmakers Are Reshaping the Industry Through Film Villages
By Kunle Awosiyan
Perhaps the disagreement between two of Nollywood’s biggest filmmakers, Kunle Afolayan and Funke Akindele, over cinema promotion may have have opened more windows into a much bigger conversation about the future of Nigeria’s film industry.
Their debate is about who really benefits from a blockbuster, and who owns the infrastructure that makes the business profitable, which of course generated heated arguments among their fans.
At the centre of the debate is a familiar spectacle in contemporary Nollywood that actors will have to dance, create skits, change costumes and appear in promotional videos to attract audiences to cinemas, which Afolayan really kicked against.
Afolayan, speaking at the Lagos Business of Film Summit in January 2026, questioned the pressure on filmmakers to engage in such promotional activities, describing the routine as draining. He argued that he wanted to make films without being compelled to dance to sell them. He also raised concerns about the disparity between reported box-office figures and what producers ultimately receive.
Akindele, meanwhile, has built a highly visible promotional approach around her films, helping to generate public attention and audience interest.
But beyond the contrasting approaches of the two filmmakers lies a more consequential question: is the next phase of Nollywood’s development about producing more blockbuster movies, or owning more of the businesses and facilities that make those blockbusters possible?
For instance in her movie “Behind The Scenes” Funke Akindele reportedly grossed approximately ₦2.755 billion at the box office but investigation revealed that she only got about ₦990 million after assumed taxes, revenue sharing and distribution fees.
For some of the filmmakers, this creates an incentive to examine the wider value chain, which of course may have informed a few of them that are now setting up their own film villages,.cinema and villages to manage their revenue.
Recent investments by Yoruba filmmakers in film villages, studios and multipurpose creative centres suggest that the industry’s ambitions are expanding beyond acting, directing and producing.
The emerging strategy is to build assets that can serve the entire filmmaking ecosystem, from production and post-production to training, hospitality and, potentially, distribution and exhibition.
The commercial success of Funke Akindele’s Behind The Scenes illustrates both the possibilities and the complexities of the cinema business.This is where film villages and studios become significant.
For years, Nigerian filmmakers have relied on private homes, rented buildings, public spaces and temporary sets to create the worlds portrayed in their films. This approach has sustained an energetic industry, but it can also involve repeated set construction, location negotiations, transportation expenses and logistical difficulties.
It can provide ready-made environments for traditional villages, palaces, colonial-era buildings, forests and modern urban settings. Accommodation, equipment storage, production offices and other services can also be incorporated into the facility.
Instead of spending resources recreating similar environments for every production, filmmakers can use existing sets and facilities, subject to availability and rental costs.
More importantly, the owner can earn revenue when other producers hire the location.
A film village can therefore serve as both a creative resource and a commercial enterprise, generating income from production rentals, accommodation, events, excursions and related services.
For filmmakers who invest in such facilities, the ambition is no longer limited to making a successful film. It is to own an asset that other filmmakers may need to use.
One of the prominent examples is the KAP Film Village and Resort in Igbojaye, Oyo State, established by filmmaker Kunle Afolayan.
The facility combines production sets with accommodation and hospitality services. Its purpose-built environments have supported productions associated with Afolayan’s filmmaking enterprise, including Anikulapo.
The model connects filmmaking with tourism and hospitality. A facility can serve a film crew during production and potentially attract visitors seeking recreation or an experience of the environment associated with film production.
Afolayan’s investment is particularly relevant to the debate over cinema promotion. While his remarks question the pressure to sell films through constant online performances, his film village represents a different form of long-term investment: creating a physical asset that can support filmmaking beyond a single release.
The two issues are not necessarily contradictory. Marketing remains important, but ownership of production infrastructure can provide another route towards building a sustainable entertainment business.
Actor and filmmaker Ibrahim Chatta has also invested in the production infrastructure through Africhatta Film Village and Resort in Oyo State.
The facility, reported to cover about 74 acres, incorporates traditional-looking buildings and cultural settings suitable for productions requiring historical or indigenous environments. It has hosted filmmakers and productions, including the television series Eleran.
Chatta’s project demonstrates how a performer can extend his business interests beyond acting and film production into the provision of services to other industry professionals.
The significance is particularly clear for Yoruba-language productions and historical dramas, which frequently require recognisable cultural environments, traditional architecture and elaborate settings.
A filmmaker who owns such a location can use it for personal productions while making it available to other producers. The facility becomes part of the industry’s working infrastructure rather than merely a backdrop for one actor’s career.
The BAP Film Village in Epe, Lagos, established by theatre and film producer Bolanle Austen-Peters, offers another example of the model.
Austen-Peters disclosed that her film House of Ga’a was shot at the facility and that it was available for commercial productions and excursions.
Her investment reflects the demands of large-scale historical storytelling, where landscapes, buildings and carefully designed environments can play a major role in the visual credibility of a film.
The facility also illustrates how infrastructure developed for one production can subsequently serve other filmmakers and generate additional commercial opportunities.
Together, the projects associated with Afolayan, Chatta and Austen-Peters show that the film-village model is not confined to one filmmaker or one production company.
The latest development in this expanding infrastructure story is Femi Adebayo’s Euphoria 360 Hub, unveiled in Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos, on October 6, 2026.
Unlike a film village primarily associated with outdoor sets and filming locations, Euphoria 360 is designed as a multipurpose film and media production facility. Its reported offerings include production studios, editing and post-production facilities, sound services, creative workspaces and training opportunities.
The distinction is important. Film villages provide physical environments in which stories can be staged, while studios and creative hubs can supply technical services required before, during and after filming.
Euphoria 360 therefore points towards another aspect of the industry’s transformation: the development of facilities intended to serve not only established filmmakers but also content creators, musicians and emerging creative professionals.
Its long-term commercial significance will depend on its capacity to attract regular clients, deliver quality services and sustain the use of its facilities.
Nevertheless, the investment signals an ambition to build a business around creative production rather than depend exclusively on income from individual films.
The prominence of Yoruba filmmakers in this infrastructure movement is notable.
Yoruba theatre and filmmaking traditions have long contributed to Nigeria’s screen culture, with practitioners developing distinctive storytelling styles, indigenous-language productions and production networks. The current investments build on that history by placing greater emphasis on permanent facilities and commercially reusable assets.
However, this should not be interpreted as evidence that the entire Nigerian film industry is moving in one direction or that infrastructure ownership is exclusive to Yoruba filmmakers. Nollywood comprises multiple language traditions, production centres and business models.
The more useful observation is that several prominent Yoruba filmmakers are demonstrating how regional storytelling traditions can support investment in physical infrastructure, cultural tourism and creative enterprise.
Film villages can also preserve architectural styles, traditional environments and cultural imagery that might otherwise be expensive or difficult to reproduce. If opened to other producers, they can serve a wider range of Nigerian stories.
The opportunity, therefore, extends beyond the fortunes of individual actors. It includes jobs for technicians, set designers, construction workers, hospitality staff, trainers and other professionals who support the creative economy.
Building a film village or studio is only the beginning. Land acquisition, construction, equipment, power supply, maintenance, staffing and security can require substantial capital.
A facility must attract enough productions and other paying customers to cover operating costs and recover its investment. It must also remain accessible to independent filmmakers whose budgets may be smaller than those of major production companies.
There is a further distinction between owning production facilities and owning cinemas. A film village or studio does not automatically give its owner a share of ticket sales. To participate directly in cinema exhibition, a filmmaker would need a separate ownership arrangement or commercial agreement with exhibitors.
The business case is strongest when facilities are used consistently, provide reliable services and develop multiple sources of income rather than depend on occasional blockbuster productions.
For government and private investors, this creates an opportunity to support training, technical infrastructure, financing and partnerships that allow such facilities to serve a broader creative community.
The conversation sparked by Afolayan and Akindele’s contrasting approaches to film promotion is ultimately about more than dancing, skits or social media visibility.
It highlights different ways of building a filmmaking business: one centred on attracting audiences to individual releases, and another focused on developing the physical and technical infrastructure that makes productions possible.
In practice, Nollywood needs both. Films must find audiences, while producers need commercially sustainable ways to finance and deliver them.
But the growing presence of film villages and creative hubs adds another dimension to the competition. Filmmakers are increasingly exploring how to turn their professional success into assets that can support future productions and generate income beyond a single film.
The emerging power play is not simply about who makes the biggest movie or attracts the largest audience. It is also about who owns the studios, locations, equipment and creative facilities that the industry needs to keep producing.
For Nollywood, that shift could prove as consequential as the race for box-office records. For Yoruba filmmakers in particular, investments in film villages and production hubs offer a way to translate a rich storytelling tradition into a more permanent and diversified creative economy.
The next measure of success may therefore be not only the film that dominates the box office, but the infrastructure that helps an entire industry tell its next story.
