Corporate Hollywood, the distribution problem.

[Joseph Hutson]

You really need to change it to your real name, though, so you can be held accountable for your words.

Nah. He's good. A few people have checked with the mods on this. Either the initial of the First or Last name along with a full First name or Last name is cool...

 

[M Most]

It's not useless... the current way we make movies is going to be around for a long time, so you'll probably continue to have a successful career. I just thought the point of this thread was to OBJECTIVELY (aka... PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ASIDE) discus the shortcomings and waste of the current model and try to come up with better ideas and solutions for the future. My mistake.

If you haven't noticed ticket prices keep going up, people keep complaining about the quality of films, and studios are still blowing millions on advertising. The key word in this thread title was "problem" not "the current Hollywood system is working perfectly... please discus."

OK, I'll discuss (I really don't know why, but I will). Looking at below the line and other expenses as the source of a bloated budget problem is just like looking at the national debt and concluding that things like education and social programs are the source of the problem, but conveniently ignoring the largest single component of the national budget, and therefore the biggest source of waste: defense. In the film business, above the line is our version of defense - some kind of sacred cow that can't be touched under almost any circumstances, even though nobody can really give a good reason as to why. So instead, producers, studios, and people like yourself look at things that either don't significantly matter or don't exist - like your scenario of armies of assistants - and point to them as examples of waste. In the meantime, the above the line costs - which can easily represent almost 70% of a budget - are ignored or brushed under the rug. In television, there are attempts made to control this, and that is evident if you look closely enough. In most cable series, for instance, either the core cast is 4 players or less, or any additional "regulars" are not present in every episode. This is done intentionally, with some players given, say, a 16 out of 22 show commitment. In addition, if you look at shows from about 10 years ago, compared to current shows, you'll find a lot fewer people with producer level titles, especially in recent years. These titles used to be given to staff writers as an additional incentive, but that is no longer nearly as common. Not only that, there are fewer staff writers, in some cases, far fewer. All of these things have been done to control costs, so if you think those who run these things either don't care, don't know what they're doing, or are not doing something about it, you're wrong. Features have a similar problem in terms of above the line, but the stakes are higher, so investors must be attracted to larger budgeted projects by ensuring that everything possible is being done to ensure its public appeal and ultimate success. So talent is signed accordingly.

Your continuing insistence that "ignorance is bliss," and that somehow being outside the industry and the system is some sort of path to enlightenment is a bit naive.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Nah. He's good. A few people have checked with the mods on this. Either the initial of the First or Last name along with a full First name or Last name is cool...

I'm now under the impression that someone took the comment as a need to serve or reprimand for not having a full last name, versus being facetious and passive-aggressively commenting on his lack of identity when posting his... facts.

 

[Bryce O]

Now I remember you: you had another thread going about Hollywood Nepotism. AT the time (one month ago) you said you have yet to actually create anything of your own. Is this still the case?

Uh yea... do you really believe that anyone could create anything significant an worthwhile in a month? I'm saving money and refining my ideas and concepts... I'm not just one of those hipsters that smokes weed and thinks the first idea I have is brilliant.

You really need to change it to your real name, though, so you can be held accountable for your words.

Held accountable? Seriously, am I making death threats of something? You need to lighten up. This is a discussion. Nothing more. Or are you one of those people that is going to black-list my name and use reverse-nepotism to make sure I never get a production job or something? I can tell... you must have lived in Hollywood for quite sometime now... :w00t:

Looking at below the line and other expenses as the source of a bloated budget problem is just like looking at the national debt and concluding that things like education and social programs are the source of the problem, but conveniently ignoring the largest single component of the national budget, and therefore the biggest source of waste: defense.

Ok, yea, wow... I'm sorry. This is very reveling. Your internal philosophy is COMPLETELY different than mine. There is no way I can possible discus anything further here... sorry.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Held accountable? Seriously, am I making death threats of something? You need to lighten up. This is a discussion. Nothing more. Or are you one of those people that is going to black-list my name and use reverse-nepotism to make sure I never get a production job or something? I can tell... you must have lived in Hollywood for quite sometime now... :w00t:

Still wondering how my response was taken seriously at all when the adverb was clearly out of context with the sentence. Though = I'm just ribbing you, young man.

But, on a serious note... nepotism is going to keep you out of the game; sorry to have to inform you of that.

 

[Bryce O]

But, on a serious note... nepotism is going to keep you out of the game; sorry to have to inform you of that.

In what sense? That I don't currently have any friends in production that can give me a job? Then yes, currently you're right. But if I meet a hot cougar (impossible because only girls under 25 are hot) production coordinator at a bar next weekend... bang her, then no... I will have a job. I don't know what angle you were coming from there?

 

[Kholi Hicks]

In what sense...? That I don't currently have any friends in production that can give me a job? Then yes, currently you're right. But if I meet a hot cougar production coordinator at a bar next weekend... bang her, then no... I will have a job.

Glad you managed to realize that one was a joke before you popped your mop over it. =]

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Bryce, let's keep this to two guys talking in a coffee shop, face to face. If you had presented your point of view on this matter, I would answer you the same way I am on this forum right now. You are both right and wrong. Is there waste and inefficiencies on movies, tv shows, commercials, etc? Yes, there is. Just like any business, there are always going to be things that could be improved upon. However, where it's difficult for you to have a perspective on is where that waste and inefficiency actually is, only because you are not currently working at the Hollywood level. That's not an insult to you by the way. When you work on large productions, you are able to see things first hand and can better assess the situation. For example, let's say you are a gaffer. Looking at it from the outside, you may think the gaffer just needs an assistant or two. But when you are on set, and see the demands of the set, you will realize quickly that it's not the case. There's a lot of work that needs to get done, and sometimes on very tight schedules, and having the right amount of people in place can be key to getting it done. If you are mostly referring to above the line talent, yes there is excess at times, but not always as much as you might think. Assistants can be very important at this level too. Again, a lot needs to get done and having bodies to make it happen can make or break a schedule.

Now, I won't say things can't be improved on. For sure they can. But how would you really know without being there first hand to form a complete picture of what works and what doesn't? In all sincerity, I do hope that you are able to become involved in big productions and perhaps make some positive changes some day. It takes smart, determined people to implement progress. Maybe you will be one of those people. But you need to get your foot in the door first. I think that will allow you to justify the point of view you have and speak to others in the industry from the perspective of someone working in the industry. You will certainly get a much different response from the likes of Mike Most and others who bust their ass working on the types of productions you are critiquing.

Again, not bashing you here at all, far from it. Just trying to help.

 

[Bryce O]

Bryce, let's keep this to two guys talking in a coffee shop, face to face. If you had presented your point of view on this matter, I would answer you the same way I am on this forum right now. You are both right and wrong. Is there waste and inefficiencies on movies, tv shows, commercials, etc? Yes, there is. Just like any business, there are always going to be things that could be improved upon. However, where it's difficult for you to have a perspective on is where that waste and inefficiency actually is, only because you are not currently working at the Hollywood level. That's not an insult to you by the way. When you work on large productions, you are able to see things first hand and can better assess the situation. For example, let's say you are a gaffer. Looking at it from the outside, you may think the gaffer just needs an assistant or two. But when you are on set, and see the demands of the set, you will realize quickly that it's not the case. There's a lot of work that needs to get done, and sometimes on very tight schedules, and having the right amount of people in place can be key to getting it done. If you are mostly referring to above the line talent, yes there is excess at times, but not always as much as you might think. Assistants can be very important at this level too. Again, a lot needs to get done and having bodies to make it happen can make or break a schedule.

Now, I won't say things can't be improved on. For sure they can. But how would you really know without being there first hand to form a complete picture of what works and what doesn't? In all sincerity, I do hope that you are able to become involved in big productions and perhaps make some positive changes some day. It takes smart, determined people to implement progress. Maybe you will be one of those people. But you need to get your foot in the door first. I think that will allow you to justify the point of view you have and speak to others in the industry from the perspective of someone working in the industry. You will certainly get a much different response from the likes of Mike Most and others who bust their ass working on the types of productions you are critiquing.

Again, not bashing you here at all, far from it. Just trying to help.

Thanks. I appreciate this response and not just the typical "you don't know because you don't work in it."

To clear it up, I completely agree that the way movies are made currently... the budgets and jobs make sense. Totally understand that. I was just speaking from a purely objective "if we had to start from scratch today, does the system still make sense?" point of view. Or would we do it differently? Just look at what is possible with and computers and digital acquisition these days... but have studios really utilized the full potential? I don't think so. I think producers and executives just plugged them in place of the older tech and didn't even try to re-think how they could alter the entire chain. Some of this I think came from a lack of vision... and the other part came from professionals who were afraid of losing their jobs and convinced them to keep using the older way of doing things. Even with my "limited" outside knowledge... thanks to the internet, we have more information at our finger tips than anyone would have expected 20 years ago. So you say we have "no idea", but you'd be surprised. What we lack in experience, we made up with knowledge... to a degree.

Smaller boutique companies are becoming capable of more and more these days with less people and less money... while the giant unionized studios seem to be going nowhere, yet still costing more and more every year. (and we all know what unions can do to an industry... ie. the American automotive one) There's got to be a kink in the chain somewhere...

 

[Erik Franzén]

[...] There's got to be a kink in the chain somewhere...

VFX and talent. Those two can swallow any other budget concern into nonexistence (what's that? 150K on cameras? Oh, that's nothing compared to the fifty million we're handing over to the FX studios!). Visual effects cost money, that is granted, but the real issue boils down to overuse of VFX in most modern movies (exceptions exist, as with all things). I mean, if artists were paid for things like overtime, budgets would be overflowing faster than you can say "cash"! The reason that this can be exploited is, quite simply put, competition; right now there is so much competition in this arena that the work is a practical minefield to navigate. This can be seen in many other industries as well (game development is similar in this respect).

The effect is that the overabundance of unemployed artists leads to studios cutting corners wherever they can... say in bonuses and overtime pay. Of course, this works in both ways as the VFX industry is constantly booming because of the sheer amount of content being produced with heavy VFX elements.

But I am getting away from the point: if you're looking for a place where the costs are ridiculously inflated, look towards talent salaries and visual effect expenditures. Compared to that, everything else is a mere footnote in terms of expenditure.

 

[M Most]

Smaller boutique companies are becoming capable of more and more these days with less people and less money... while the giant unionized studios seem to be going nowhere, yet still costing more and more every year. (and we all know what unions can do to an industry... ie. the American automotive one) There's got to be a kink in the chain somewhere...

Well, one major kink in the chain in the film industry is the fact that we live in a country in which you can't get health insurance in a freelance industry without the presence of a union. Fix the health care issue and you minimize the need for a union, if you really feel that's the problem. I don't happen to agree, but it's not a completely invalid point.

Your statements about doing things "differently" and "what is possible" and "lack of vision" and "full potential" would make more sense if you offered actual specifics as to what you're talking about. It's very easy to say things should be re-thought. It's another thing altogether to offer suggestions as to what exactly you're referring to.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

But I am getting away from the point: if you're looking for a place where the costs are ridiculously inflated, look towards talent salaries and visual effect expenditures. Compared to that, everything else is a mere footnote in terms of expenditure.

Well, with deadlines becoming so tight, the idea that VFX budgets are inflated when you need to keep A+ Grade people employed around the clock to get them finished? Talent Salaries, different story. Just try to book a reality star for a commercial... you're talking a few million for eight hours of work.

 

[Nathan L Collett]

Bryce O, , in regards to unions being the problem in the american auto industry... the problem wasn't the unions it was the executives who thought cheap oil and demand for hummers, SUVs, trucks, would never end. The failure in 2009-2010 due to poor planning and bad management at the executive to CEO level not the guys who made the cars (though unionized labor added to the expense). The cost of labor wasn't the problem per se, though, it was the lack of demand following rising commodity prices and financial crisis. Yet despite the same givens, and with unionized labor, the German auto industry focused on quality and medium to small size vehicles and didn't experience such a downturn. No need for bailouts. As it stands BMW, Mercedes, VW / Audio are growing and exporting more. The same top heavy type leadership style and resource allocation seen in GM that has lead to many problems across US industry, unlike Germany which is exporting like gang busters, maintaining a high standard of living, union labor, and building things in their own country. German system is a bit less top down and more responsive to world markets. Better leadership is the issue, not unions.

Now that may be where the parallel actually works and dovetails back to what Mike Most is saying, the above the line, the top part of the film industry is very heavily compensated and determinant of what happens. People on set is a miniscule part of the budget, its really the above the line costs that are high the: star(s), producer(s), studio overhead, director. After that is the v/fx and marketing. Nowadays they only feel like they can make money on films above $100 Million budget or below $30 Million. Maybe a new reality will emerge... but still w/o the same stars and all that, can it compete? They are the real cost, not people on set. Can you make a film w/o stars and compete? Thats the $100 Million dollar question.

 

[Erik Franzén]

Well, with deadlines becoming so tight, the idea that VFX budgets are inflated when you need to keep A+ Grade people employed around the clock to get them finished? Talent Salaries, different story. Just try to book a reality star for a commercial... you're talking a few million for eight hours of work.

Please don't read anything else into it - I was saying that the actual expenditure going towards VFX is ridiculous and inflated, as is the overuse of it as an element, rather than saying that the people and studios committed to the actual work are being overpaid - which, as I pointed out, is rather the opposite in this case.

And yes. Talent gets ridiculous and inflated pays in the millions. Now, if the system wasn't what it is then that might be different... Either way, fact remains that these are number 1 and 2 when it comes to cutting costs and, if the system was to be remade to work more efficiently, then those two would be targets of attack - which I thought was what the discussion was about.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Please don't read anything else into it - I was saying that the actual expenditure going towards VFX is ridiculous and inflated, as is the overuse of it as an element, rather than saying that the people and studios committed to the actual work are being overpaid - which, as I pointed out, is rather the opposite in this case.

Ah, got it. You're saying too much VFX in mainstream features. Sorry, thought you meant VFX budgets were too high.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

OK, I'll discuss (I really don't know why, but I will). Looking at below the line and other expenses as the source of a bloated budget problem is just like looking at the national debt and concluding that things like education and social programs are the source of the problem, but conveniently ignoring the largest single component of the national budget, and therefore the biggest source of waste: defense.

Mike,

I usually find your posts thoughtful and informative, even when I may not share the same view about one aspect or another of the industry. But respectfully, since this is not a political forum, and we don't all hold the same political views, why not leave the political analogies out of it? Since it would be bad form and off topic to respond based on my own politics, maybe it's best to stick to Red related stuff in the first place. I certainly appreciate your expertise about all things post production, and was interested to hear your views about above and below the line, etc.

Tim Eaton

 

[Shawn Booth]

Our unions rule. They are not a part of the problem.

Rather than worrying about changing the system (especially when lacking any experience, which equals knowledge) how about worrying about telling better stories. Can YOU tell a fantastic story? Can you do it better than the studios? Just telling the story, forget production values and actors and anything else. Can YOU tell a better story? If so, everything else will fall into place and you can then do whatever suits your fancy...

Story is the single most important thing in filmmaking. Always has been, always will be. If the story sucks, who cares if it was shot by the most awesome cinematographer on the newest digital camera under the greatest director with an all A list talent pool and the biggest studio with all the marketing and money anyone could hope for... Story still sucks. You wanna fix something? Fix the story.

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

People aren't the only thing that costs money on movies. Lawyers

:smile: Freudian slip much!? hahaha

 

[Erik Bien]

Politics aside, Tim and Bryce, are you disputing the fact that Defense is the single largest portion of US Federal spending, or merely ignorant of it?

* Note that more than 50% of "Discretionary" Spending also goes to the military.

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

Well, You already stated that you have little actual working knowledge, your perspective is from a consumer standpoint.

Is O your real last name?

Maybe it's a philosophy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY-VdxwxSas