A Widening Chasm, Part II
In the last article, I wrote about what I perceive to be a growing gap between the way writers look at new ways to gain power and the way writers’ representatives look at new ways to gain power.
To summarize, the writer’s model is a traditional one, in which writers work as employees and collectively bargain with management for better terms…hoping to move our participation in revenues forward…and pursuing a strategy of organizing and strike threats to achieve this goal.
The representatives’ model, which is currently evolving, works a little something like this.
In the future, a filmmaking unit will not work as employees for a studio. Rather, the filmmaking unit (writer and director and perhaps star) will present their vision of a movie to a group of independent financiers, who will form a partnership with the filmmakers. Obviously, this is nothing new. Hell, just about every indy art film is made this way. What’s changing is the amount available.
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that the financiers will spend about 25 million dollars to finance the film, and in exchange for that, they will own 75% of the film. The filmmakers will still get paid their normal front-end salaries, but they will also own 25% of the film.
The financiers do not give notes. They do not request final cut. They have simple terms like “it has to be PG-13 or R” and “it can’t run more than 120 minutes.”
While the film is in production, the representatives shop it to studios. They state that given the economic realities of foreign sales, broadcast fees, etc., if a studio purchases the film for 40 million dollars, the studio pretty much knows they can automatically make that back and then some, just by dint of standard global exploitation of the property.
The studio buys the film for 40 million dollars. The financiers recoup their 25 million dollar investment, leaving an additional 15 million, which is instant profit.
The filmmakers’ 25% nets them nearly four million in additional cash. But that’s just the beginning.
The studio will spend money to market and distribute the film. Let’s say that they spend enough to offset the entire worldwide theatrical gross of the movie. No problem. As everyone knows, the profit is entirely in the video. That’s the free money. Because the studios rely on video for their profit, they have been loathe to share it with the artists.
The WGA strikes in ‘85 and ‘88 were over video residuals definitions. If we strike in 2007, it will be over internet video residuals definitions.
Currently, a writer receives 1.5% of 20% of the studios’ video earnings.
Surely that number is better for big stars or big producers, right? Well, maybe bigshots can do better than the 1.5%, but everyone gets screwed on the definition on the earnings. In the WGA’s case, it’s that 20% number. Some people get that number to 25%. Really big-time producers and stars can push it to 35%.
But financiers? The people who post the cash to finance the film?
100%.
In our example, the filmmakers are partnered with the financiers, so they piggyback on to the 100% definition. Now let’s say the sales deal to the studio included a 15% share of the video. Our filmmakers’ take would be nearly 4%.
4% of 100%. As opposed to 1.5% of 20%.
In other words, 4% vs. .3%. The video earnings would be 13 times as much as you would normally get.
If you’re talking about a decent hit, it’s the difference between earning a few hundred grand in residuals…and earning 30 million dollars in video profits.
Now, think that’s all crazy talk? Think that’s never gonna happen?
What if I told you it happened last week?
Instead of selling his next script to a studio, Sascha Baron Cohen packaged his next film with independent financiers for 25 million dollars, presold it to Universal for 42 million dollars, and will likely earn tens of millions if the movie does decent business.
Sascha Baron Cohen has leapfrogged beyond unions. He has leapfrogged beyond employment. He is an owner now.
Think this only works if you’re a star as well as a writer? Well, the filmmakers of Babel did the same thing. It’s happening more and more now, and I think it’s the wave of the future. Mid-sized budget films are going to be independently financed, and the studios will simply serve as releasing companies, providing the services that they provide best (marketing and distribution).
Why would the companies allow this?
First off, they’re not. They’re being competed against by new money, and if Baron Cohen wants to partner up with some Wall Street money to make his next movie, there’s nothing they can do about it.
Secondly, the very corporatization and conglomeratization that unions fear is very likely a source of advantage for entrepreneurs. The studios used to fly by their gut. No more. They’re not in the business of building a library that will pay off huge dividends in the future. They’re in the business of increasing their stockholders’ value right now, and that means minimizing risk.
As one agent explained to me, “Just about every studio film is now cofinanced with another studio or an independent partner. If they’re going to hedge their bet with outside money, why shouldn’t you be that outside money?”
In my mind, reliable filmmakers who shoot genre films for a price will be the immediate beneficiaries of this new model. Think Baron Cohen, Judd Apatow, Eli Roth and so forth. It will spread, though. Once a writer makes 30 million dollars on a movie that only earned, say, 90 million at the box office in the U.S., every single writer in Hollywood is going to want to do the same thing.
What’s the practical effect?
Studio development will wither away.
Production companies that aren’t based around artists will wither away.
The unions and studio management will continue to negotiate contracts that will cover fewer and fewer artists.
Total filmmakers will be rewarded.
Specialists will not.
Granted, this could all be crazy talk. Maybe what Baron Cohen and Guillermo Arriaga (Babel) did is just a brief quirk in the Hollywood timeline, and we’ll all be laughing about it five years from now.
Something tells me, though, that this trend will continue because it makes sense. If it does, we may finally get everything we ever thought we deserved.
And then some.
Edited to add: Ted just alerted me to an L.A. Times article about this very topic. Of particular note is the paragraph that describes how Tony Gilroy wrote a script, then declined to sell it to a studio, preferring instead to meet with private financiers.
The model is clear.
The math on the earnings looks a bit funny though. A 4% take on $30 million would imply a total video profit of $750 million. That’d be lot of DVDs.
typo. meant “A 4% take equalling $30 million”.
Al:
Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous there. The 30 million number was meant to be inclusive of up-front fees plus sales fees plus video.
Furthermore, back-end video participation is calculated against the studio gross, not the studio profit.
Generally speaking, you can expect a film’s video earnings to be anywhere from 50-70% of its worldwide theatrical gross.
If a film makes $100,000,000 worldwide (decent) than you’re probably looking at $60,000,000 in video grosses. So sure, your 4% would only be about three million, but that’s just DVD. There’s still an enormous amount of money made through the sale of the film to broadcast and pay TV as well.
Even with our bad formulae, WGA writers will make between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in residuals on a big hit film that makes, say, $200,000,000 worldwide in theatrical.
If you expand out the video basis and increase your overall participation rate, you can certainly get into the tens of millions.
Of course, having a hit helps. :)
Thanks for the lowdown, C.
Craig, if this finanacial packaging does become an emergent trend, will this change the way the writer should approach the market? How for instance, would you see the model working? Would the writer approach a star or a director with the independent course in mind, before approaching anyone else? I’m an uncredited writer and I’m still not entirely sure if this hinders or improves my chances - does this mean that getting a director interested in your script, a director who would be in a good position to approach an independent finacier, would be a tangible and beneficial course of action? Very interesting and insightful article, thank you.
“Studio development will wither away.”
This is the most attractive part of the scenario. The extra money is icing on the cake.
Fantastic articles Mr. Mazin - very informative and insightful…though I’m now fully prepared to expect brain ache each time I stop by here and try to wrap my head around whatever topic you’ve put on the table.
“The financiers do not give notes. They do not request final cut. They have simple terms like “it has to be PG-13 or R” and “it can’t run more than 120 minutes.””
“Studio Development will whither away.”
You make this sound like the artistic promised land. I doubt this will be so—the nature of business is to minimize risk and maximize profits. Those financiers will immediately begin to act in the same way that studios do.
Nobody puts up millions of dollars to buy something, and then accepts the fact that they have no say in what that product will be. They’d have to be an idiot to do that.
Financiers will demand only certain types of scripts and stories. They will demand that actors and directors be attached. They will only offer to make deals when they’ve already made their profit by ensuring a studio will buy the film from them.
Which means the studios will be telling these financiers what types of movies they want, who will star in them, and what script changes need to be made to make them acceptable. The financiers will then add their own ideas and pass it down to the filmmakers.
It seems like it’s just adding another middle man to the process.
The flaw in single point “analysis” such as this is you can make any case you want. It’s a horrible way to craft policy, especially for an organization as large as the WGA whose responsibility is to advance policy that enhances the membership’s genuine welfare.
You’d do better by taking an economic equilibrium view of this model. If you did, you’d understand several things:
1) Does this policy collectivly increase the overall reward for writers?
2) From what participant(s) in the value chain does this increase, or decrease, come from?
3) How might the disadvantaged participant react to this policy?
4) Is it possible to mitigate that reaction so one can protect the gain?
There are participants in the movie creation value chain (studios) that commission (a lot of) this type of analysis, and use it to drive policy on how they will deal with other participants in the value chain (WGA & other unions). I don’t think it hyperbole to state you will be creamed if you leave issues of policy to such ad hoc formulations.
Lee
Hm, a hedge fund that I used to work for just made a huge deal with Joel Silver — maybe it’s time to break out the ol’ Rolodex…
“Nobody puts up millions of dollars to buy something, and then accepts the fact that they have no say in what that product will be. They?d have to be an idiot to do that.”
“Financiers will demand only certain types of scripts and stories. They will demand that actors and directors be attached. They will only offer to make deals when they?ve already made their profit by ensuring a studio will buy the film from them.”
This is actually not true. On a much, much, much, much, smaller scale this business model is how I’ve been doing all of my business. The way it works with Hedge Funds and Financiers is this…it’s an investment. They look for different things to invest in. A Hedge Fund Manager might take one client and invest in a couple of movies (to mitigate their risk), a video game company, and I don’t know…a toothpaste company all at the same time.
“The financiers will then add their own ideas and pass it down to the filmmakers”
The financier has absolutely no interest in the content of the movie. All they care about is if they’ve ever heard the person starring in the movie. Which by the way, may not be necessarily a star by our standards.
Also, studios don’t usually ensure that they’ll buy anything. There’s a myth out there about who a bankable star is which is why when you go to Blockbuster Video, you’ll see straigh to DVD titles starring Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. There are no assurances and I would say that 90% (a number I made up) of independent productions are not pre-sold to a studio. Most indie films are acquired after the film is done and/or premiered at a major film festival.
Craig,
Great post. The big question is how will the studios react to this sort of development? You suggest that they will slip into the role of distributors, happy to shed themselves of risk/capital heavy end of the equation: development and production. While there is a current trend of trimming at the studios in these areas, I don’t see them ceding control over their product so easily. They know as well as anyone that the the distribution pipeline is changing, maybe radically, with technology. With this instability on the horizon the control of the product will become the trump cards in the deck. They also know that their brand awareness isn’t in their logos, but in the talent they employ. Nobody runs out to see the new Warner Bros. movie. Their biggest fear is going the way of the record labels.
There is also a vast army of studio heads and executives that see their power slipping, as they are absorbed into the Borg of multi-national corps. One of the only areas they can still exert control is by providing that buffer between the corporate head office and the talent. They know how to handle those mysterious and wonky artists. Take that away from them, reducing their roles to buyers in a numbers game, and suddenly it’s time to downsize.
As a group, they will fight that tooth and nail. Personal survival is a powerful motivator.
-Wil
I foresee one problem with your analysis, imbedded in the psychology of the beast that is the studio system. you see, like all good villains, the beast doesn’t know it is the beast. it doesn’t know the lot is its lair. more to the point, studios want control, creative control. that’s why few directors get final cut (only one of many symptoms that present proof positive that studios want, no… seize creative control). they don’t want to just buy a film and do the dirty work (market and distribute). their executives WANT to develop projects… and some are quite good at it. others are not. in effect this means a studio will never alocate all their financial resources to merely buying films, or package deals or whatever we want to call them, for otherwise they could close the lot. they’d become distributors, not film studios, and miss out on all the fun. so while i see your business model as a viable alternative, i don’t see it replacing the current system anytime soon… or ever.
Craig; I can see this for films with mid or smaller budgets, but what would the model be for the 100mil+ summer blockbusters? How do you see them being effected?
I’m with Mike on this.
A picture like Babel or whatever Sacha Baron Cohen is giving us next, which can be done somewhere in the range of 20-50 mill, yes, it can be done with people pooling resources and later selling it to the studio.
But what if I want to make a spectacular Sci-fi or historical epic with an all-star cast and expensive special effects (Which is what I am interested in the most as a director) - what then? What amount of independent financiers will it take to pool in 200 million dollars? Can it be done?
I only see two ways out of it: 1) either big studios remain in business solely for managing big-budget movies, or 2) everybody, including movie stars, start offering their services for less money.
In case neither happens, big-budget movies are doomed. I am doomed.
Sasha didn’t have an easy time of it, either … his Ali G movie wasn’t even released here, except for dvd, and the Borat film was started and stopped a couple times.
And Borat was released only 800 screens, compare to the over 3,000 screens for Santa Clause 3 …
The financier has absolutely no interest in the content of the movie. All they care about is if they’ve ever heard the person starring in the movie. Which by the way, may not be necessarily a star by our standards.
This is a rather broad over-generalization, don’t you think, Kevin? There may be one or two fianciers who don’t give a whit to what the content of the film is, but I’m sure most want to at least know if it’s going to be NC-17 or not, if it’s horror or not, if it’s gonna go pink or not, if it’s funny or not.
If financiers had absolutely no interest in the content of the movie, it’d be a lot easier to get a variety of films made. I know of a few actors who have attached themselves to dream projects and can get financing for one reason or another.
I meant to say CANNOT get financing for one reason or another.
Damn it, typing to fast and hitting post to damn quick. My bad.
“If financiers had absolutely no interest in the content of the movie, it’d be a lot easier to get a variety of films made. I know of a few actors who have attached themselves to dream projects and can get financing for one reason or another.”
No, no. That’s not what I meant by content. Yes, they want to know what the rating will be (they all want it to be PG-13) but only in the context of getting the biggest return for their money. Genre, of course but not as much as one might think.
When I say, “they don’t care about content” I was saying that they won’t give the writer or director notes about a line here or a plot point there. It’s about elements. It’s about who’s starring in this movie and not so what is this scene about.
“I know of a few actors who have attached themselves to dream projects and cannot get financing for one reason or another.”
That’s because there is a very small list of actual bankable actors. Also, there’s the timing, timing, timing factor which is just a huge part of filmmaking. You could take that same actor who couldn’t get a project financed on Monday and then get financing on Wednesday from somebody else because that particular investor used to watch Growing Pains religiously.
Yes.
Tell that to the financiers of Borat, who had no creative control over the film.
I agree, and I’m not suggesting that this be policy for the WGA. Hell, it couldn’t be even if the union wanted it to be. It’s simply a reality that will make the WGA less and less relevant over time, IMO.
I don’t think this model yet applies for the megabudget pictures. The studios (and large minimajors like Walden) are still the primary game in town for those kind of movies.
“But what if I want to make a spectacular Sci-fi or historical epic with an all-star cast and expensive special effects (Which is what I am interested in the most as a director) - what then? What amount of independent financiers will it take to pool in 200 million dollars? Can it be done?”
Didn’t Legendary Pictures end up raising over $100 million to put into Superman Returns? While that was in partnership with a studio, there’s no reason to believe raising such sums without that studio tie would be impossible, just very difficult (though less-so, I would presume, as the deals become more commonplace… if they do).
Of course $200 million could be raised independently of the studios. With the right elements, timing and luck, I’m sure it could be done. But it’d be an uphill climb for anybody.
“As a group, they will fight that tooth and nail. Personal survival is a powerful motivator.”
Probably, but having bigger competition may well improve the position of writers/directors and other creative elements in their dealings with the studios.
I would also think that, for a while at least, the sweet spot is still going to be the kinds of pictures the studios aren’t necessarily interested in making anyway. Opening up or expanding another potential avenue to exploit is good for the people who can create, in my opinion.
Guys,
As Craig said earlier, this has been going on in the indie realm for years. I’ve been involved with several films that have used this very model.
And movies that you often think of as “studio pics” aren’t. GANGS OF NEW YORK wasn’t. Most of the money to make that film was raised by Graham King from international sources. SKY CAPTAIN was independently financed.
So yeah, writers who want their work produced are going to have to hustle. They’re going to have to stop being employees and start being entrepeneurs.
The letters writers will have to remember aren’t WGA but LLC.
Then, A Widening Chasm is the appropriate title.
If I may bring this up, we have had an offline discussion about how the economics of the development process could be improved, while you were still an active participant on the board. I recall your reaction being something like: ‘such ideas would make me the most unpopular guy since… forever.’ I was struck by that response on several levels, and few of them flattering to you. Candidly, I found your position, cowardly.
That said, I must confess you may have been wise to repress such board discussions for your own sake, despite your fiducial responsibilities to the board. Specifically, if your board cannot see how your characterization of the pending “development” model won’t lead to the destruction of their long-term bargaining power, then the WGA deserves whatever passive fate awaits it.
Suffice to say: the WGA’s opponent is being advised by people (McKinsey, Bain, BCG, etc.) who only look at writers as an economic entity - a supplier - that they will use every strategy and tactic at their disposal to reduce their claim on the value created by movies. If they do not respond in kind (and that does not mean strike, or any other “old school” tactics), the WGA will become extinct. The only way to dismiss this warning is if one rejects the notion that market dynamics apply to the WGA.
Or, to put this in a story form, it’s all a bit tragic, no? The character who viewed themself the smartest in the room - the defender against the Philistine - only to be outsmarted by their foe.
Lee
Hi Craig,
Great discussion; small math correction.
1.5% of 20% is .3%, not .03%. The difference is then 13.3 times as much for video earnings.
Lee:
The title is a widening chasm. Or am I missing your point?
I’m sorry you thought I was cowardly. I don’t think that of myself. I simply think that I have a fundamental ability to read a room of people. I also think that I have a fundamental understanding of what a labor union can accomplish and what it can’t.
I can tell you this—I doubt anyone with whom I served would call me cowardly. Maybe a jerk, or arrogant, or overly outspoken, or perhaps strident…but not cowardly. :)
Scott:
Thanks! I knew something was screwy in there…
“The letters writers will have to remember aren’t WGA but LLC.”
Hey. I have one of those!
The trick, of course, is being able to not only find that money but convince the people with it to give it to you.
I mean, anybody can give an attorney $6,000 and have the legal entity set up, the offering documents drawn up and all of that. But banging on the doors… or even knowing where to look… is an art unto itself.
I know a lot of rich doctors and lawyers and whatnot, but I can’t imagine being able to put together more than a few million from them. Obviously that can be plenty for an indie film, but if we start talking about the kinds of movies I think we’re talking about, I would think it would be a savvy producer who’s going to be putting that deal together.
So, from the perspective of the writer, aren’t we ending up not too far removed from where we are now, at least in getting projects off the ground? I mean, a producer is a producer. The place the money’s coming from is just different (and that may well change development, but that’s further down the line than a lot of us usually live).
Or is it more like that story in the NY Times the other day about how the agencies are putting together packages and finding the money?
Or am I not making any sense at all?
Craig — fascinating topic. To extend this logically, it seems that in the future:
There will be fewer working writers, but those who work will be more richly compensated. The few people who can truly deliver a movie (Tony Gilroy, etc.) will be part of the team bringing projects to financiers, whereas the C-level rewriter won’t be needed, since there will likely be less “studio development” going on.
Do you agree?
Tom:
Yes, I think that’s where this is all going, with the caveat that it’s the studio development winnowing process that reveals the Tony Gilroys of the world.
Also, it’s not just C-level rewriters who need to fear. I think C-level spec writers should be worrying too.
So those of us who can only aspire to be on the C-list are really screwed.
Craig,
Not to push the point of character, but…
How else does one interpret your reaction?
That a position of emperical truth would make you unpopular?!
I was under the impression you were a character of the Enlightenment. Or, more to the point, what about those to whom you’ve sworn a fiducial responsibility? Those to whom you call brother? How do you justify holding back your opinion on the basis of your popularity?
Pardon me - I’m not your employer - but I’m vexed; there’s a value component to this equation, no? Or is the position of this blog: every person to themself?
lt
Lee:
I think you’re a bit confused. I’m certainly not concerned with my popularity in any large sense. For instance, I’ve taken a number of very public and very unpopular stances on this very site against the current leadership of the WGAw, for no reason other than I think they’re wrong and people need to know.
In the Board room, when dealing with that very leadership, I was always candid with my fellow members about my views. However, it would have been nonsensical to preach this sort of stuff in there…and my comment about being “unpopular” for it has taken on too much meaning with you.
What I meant by that was that these views were extremely unpopular with the leadership. Therefore, attempts to push through motions or policy changes predicated on these views would have been quixotic and, frankly, a waste of everyone’s time. I chose instead to work to change what I could. And I did.
Quite effectively, I think.
Compromise is not a bad strategy when you’re an elected official attempting to get something done in a democracy.
Look, these things I’m talking about are hardly empirical. They’re editorial. They’re opinions. Predictions. You’re trying to equate this with, say, discovering an accounting error.
It’s just not the same thing. I carried out my actual fiduciary responsibilities to the membership completely and, as far as know, without fail. I was certainly one of the most vocal members of the Board, and I continue to do what I can to spread the word now that I’m back in the rank and file.
Less working writers, but the one’s who actually get work will be paid more?
I’m a bit suspicious of this idea, in theory. I mean, we have that economic model running currently, right now in our country, we have fewer wealthy people but the people that are wealthy are really wealthy and living sucks for the rest of us.
So I wonder if that same dynamic will not hold true for working writers … . great for select few, sucky for everyone else.
Just wondering, mind you.
On a side note, there was an interesting interview which took place on BBC News 24 with Terry Gilliam last night, he vented a lot of spleen onto the studios and appears to be a very vocal supporter of the ‘packaging’ trend. This was partially broadcasted on the programme but I manged to dig up the rest of the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6xhmjht6O8
Ryan - you will have to take that few million and “prove your brand” by making a successful (read: profitable) film. Then you can start building your business.
Joshua - It won’t be fewer writers working because there will be more and more opportunities for people to finance films themselves and get them made rather then being dependent on a studio system. The movie business will operate on the general accepted practice of other industries:
You make a profit you get to do it again.
Writers will simply have to shake off this “Bartelby the scrivener” mentality in order to get ahead. Just like anyone else who wants the title of “Creator” or “Owner”. Writers will have to become responsible.
Living sucks for you? Really? Sorry to hear that.
Another creative trend:
New Element: Rich P&A deal
Unk
Living sucks for you? Really? Sorry to hear that.
Thanks Craig! Appreciate your sympathy, but more than that, appreciate it if you can support any political candidate who votes to:
A) raise the minumum wage. Hasn’t been raised in, um, 7 years or so? Congress has given itself at least 3 wages, if not 5 or so. A lot of artists, writers and actors start out working at places that can only pay minumum wage, like coffee shops and wallmart, while they work at their craft at night until they get their big break and get recognized as the next Tony Gilroy, worthy of that elite status. They recognize it could take years of work before they get their break and would appreciate getting paid enough to eat.
B) start Universal health care. A lot of artists, writers and actors start out working at places that can only pay minumum wage and don’t offer health insurance, like coffee shops and wallmart, while they work at their craft at night until they get their big break and get recognized as the next Tony Gilroy, worthy of that elite status. They recognize it could take years of work before they get their break and would appreciate being able to get medicine and health care without selling their soul and seventy hours a week to a corporate drone job just in order to get health insurance. Canada does it, why can’t we? Which reminds me …
B) stop exporting jobs overseas. Does this need to be elaborated on? Is anyone else tired of seeing Toronto on a movie screen when it’s supposed to be New York, or New Zealand when it’s supposed to be Texas? A lot of writers, directors, etc, start out working prod jobs while they work on their scripts at night, if the jobs are shipped overseas where companies don’t have to pay unions, does that help us or hurt us?
When I say “they”, I speak primarily of the writers I know who work hard and struggle to break through at the craft. I’m part of that group, sure. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it doesn’t.
As far as myself, personally, living is just fine.
In all seriousness, I don’t pretend to be an expert on business or union models … I simply asked whether or not the needs of the few trumped the needs of the group as a whole … wasn’t that a fair question to ask?
Craig; under (I guess we’ll call it…) The Represetatives’ Model…
Who owns the copyrights, and if they change hands, when does that occurr?
Who gets to make the decision as to whether or not a sequel gets made?
Who determines who does the writing for any sequels?
What, under these conditions, constitutes a “greenlight” for a first picture or sequel?
You guys rock! I’m pumped up and believe the dream does not merely need to be a dream anymore but an self-generated reality. All this talk comes down to this - we all need to step up to the plate - produce our own movie - from our own great script. We do not necessarily have to direct it. Be the Spielberg of our own ideas. Shepard them through the process. First, on digital for $10,000. Show it to money people and get $100-500,000 to make another. Hopefully, we’ll sell this one to the distributors. Those money people come back to make another PLUS we find different money people to produce, now, two features - from our great scripts. The machine has then begun.
Needs to be good, though. I can’t tell you the number of very low-budget movies I’ve seen that are just terrible (not that being terrible is necessarily an impediment to success. Sometimes people fail upwards. I’m living proof).
Of course, I think that writing very often takes a backseat to just about everything else in the no-to-low-budget filmmaking realm. There seems to be an attitude among many that the script isn’t really all that important and that anybody can throw one together.
Maybe that’s just around here, though.
True, true. “from your own great script” is a key element. Just as writing a great script isn’t easy neither is producing one. Nobody said everyone’s entitled to be successful. Be passionate, be smart and, most of all, be a businessman/salesman. This is show business not show art. Unless, making a living at it isn’t important.
Excellent question.
The answer is that it depends. In the case of Borat and Bruno, I believe those were copyright transfer purchases (once the studio agrees to buy the film, they own it outright and forever).
In the case of Babel, I believe the financiers and filmmakers licensed the movie to Paramount for 15 years. All rights revert back to them at that point.
Craig and Company:
Thanks very much for the excellent post. I frequently recommend THE ARTFUL WRITER to friends and colleagues and always find your topics and advice to be very informative.
My wife and I both work in the film industry and are very excited by the possibility that this “method” of filmmaking could become more commonplace.
Cheers,
Rochelle
These two articles about the future of screenwriter compensation reminded me of the problem design engineers have faced for decades. While there are differences between these two professions, there are some significant similarities. Both screenwriters and engineers are often viewed as being on the border between employee and manager. Both create and develop original ideas to make a lot of money for their employers and/or partners.
For almost as long as engineering has been recognized as a profession, engineers have struggled to be recognized and compensated as professionals. Management tends to view engineers as the smartest factory workers they have. It seems that studios view screenwriters in a similar way. Craig seems to be suggesting that screenwriters improve their compensation and control by doing what many engineers have done, produce their own projects with their own ideas. This has worked for a number of engineers but not for the majority of them.
You might think that screenwriters have a better shot at success because they already know how to pitch ideas. Again, there is a similarity. The most successful engineers are not only good at pitching their ideas, they are willing and able to understand business deals. Still, failure, especially failure the marketplace, is always an option even for them.
All of these skills can be learned; however, engineering and screenwriting skills are best learned by interaction with at least a few other people, preferably more. When large corporations stopped their engineer training programs, roughly in the early seventies, a lot of engineers spent tens of years instead of one or two years getting up to speed. The careers of these engineers suffered and product development suffered. If you wondered why so many technical products don’t work or don’t work well, this is mostly the reason. Engineers who don’t know what they are doing and start their own companies often make this situation worse.
I believe that Craig is making a good guess at what our future might be. In Craig’s vision, it’s easy to see how an experienced, already successful screenwriter, can kick off a project and make money on it. It’s not so easy to see how a novice screenwriter gets to the starting gate. I hope that somewhere in that future beginning screenwriters have opportunities to make a living while improving their craft.
I think this is actually positive news for the unsold/newby/spec writer. What do you think?
It’s another avenue of approach, baby. Agencies, studios, and production companies aren’t going anywhere in the short term. Right?
Joshua:
I think you’re talking about a whole other subject. Although all of the points you’re talking about are true and valid, I don’t think it really has anything to do with the subject here. Which is completely silly of me to bring that up because I think I’m the most guilty for veering off the topic. :)
Look, this is the model I’ve been using for awhile and believe me, it’s sooo much better than trying to sell a studio. Do you realize how much bullshit you can bypass by going this route? For the most part, you really know if you have something good, rather than relying on some crazy relationship or a studio that has no intention of actually shooting your movie. With this model there’s NEVER a question of a financier just buying your script without the intention of putting up the rest of the money to move into production.
For me, this is way better.
Kevin,
I was speaking strictly more about Union stuff, which I admit that I am not an expert on, than overall business model Craig proposed. I like Craig’s proposal, though I wonder if financiers will cooporate as smoothly as presented.
I was addressing the idea that we need less writers working who make more money (forgive me if I didn’t quote that correctly, I’m typing fast).
While I completely agree that we need less bad writers cluttering up the highway and more excellent writers roaring away at high speeds, how does the union decide who belongs to the elite status? How do we know we have another Tony Gilroy rather than a random Mitch Cumstein (bonus points if you can name that reference) who shouldn’t even be on the court with the other pro ballers.
Much worse, what if unknown writer Mitch Cumstein does have the elite game, who does belong on the cour,t but because he’s on the outside looking in, he’s kept out of the league due to circumstances that have nothing to do with how good his craft is. Get my point?
I remind you that both you and Craig have maintain that excellence and quality in craft is completely subjective. So how do we decide who is Tony Gilroy and who isn’t at the development stage? I mean, it’s easy to see Tony (and Scott Frank) belong now, what about when they were starting?
Who gets to make that subjective decision, if the goal is to keep a smaller number of working writers?
As someone striving to be one of those most excellent working writers, I am quite naturally concerned. It seems hard enough to break in as is … I mean, both Tony Gilroy and Scott Frank were, at some point, as unknown as anyone until someone recognized their worth.
Smaller number of writers making more money, how does that serve the union as a whole?
I’m not trying to be cheeky (okay, i was earlier with the political stuff, but Craig cheeked me first) - I truly want to know, as someone who may be on the verge of going union, the details. So that’s why I wondered what I did … cool?
“Much worse, what if unknown writer Mitch Cumstein does have the elite game, who does belong on the cour,t but because he’s on the outside looking in, he’s kept out of the league due to circumstances that have nothing to do with how good his craft is.”
How is that different from how it is now?
I’m not allowed to compete for rewrite jobs and assignments (the jobs that would be the most likely to disappear under Craig’s model) as it is because I can’t get in the room to give a sample or to pitch. That has nothing to do with the quality of my work, it’s based entirely on the fact that I haven’t managed to accomplish whatever it is I have to accomplish to allow me into the room (and, apparently, being a member of the Guild and having a spec sale isn’t the accomplishment one needs as I have that already).
Writers will break in just as they do now. There will either be producers looking for writers as currently or writers will put together their own deals like is done frequently in the indie world. The change is really is the size of the movies being made through this indie method, not the number of new writers able to break in. The fewer writers comes largely from the lack of rewrite work as scripts are endlessly developed.
Really interesting post.
As a long term indie filmmaker, this model strikes me as a much better environment for an ambitious screenwriter, than trying to do business with the studios.
Creative collaborations where a small creative team works towards a specific vision, has to be a better way to make great films, than film making by committee.
For that reason alone I think this is a great way forward.
However, the first time that investors put in $20M and the studios don’t pick up the film — that’s when we’ll see the vision rock.
This system works as much in favor of the studios as it does in favor of the investors. Simply because the investors are now taking the risk.
Part of my experience of working with private investment in the UK, is that investors don’t always come in with a clean agenda.
Once the money comes in, the production company is expected to show “due diligence” in increasing shareholder value. Failure to do that, can mean fired producers, fired directors, entire shoots aborted six days in — only to restart with a new team, hired by the financiers.
So, in many respects, it’s the same old tune.
Anyhow, it’ll be interesting to see how this all shakes out over the next couple of years.
Joshua — re: there being fewer working writers in the future… Craig isn’t saying it’s a good thing, he’s just saying it’s a likely thing. He’s also saying that the union will have little influence over it.
I think you may be mistaking prediction for advocacy.
“Much worse, what if unknown writer Mitch Cumstein does have the elite game, who does belong on the court but because he’s on the outside looking in, he’s kept out of the league due to circumstances that have nothing to do with how good his craft is. Get my point?”
Ryan already beat me to the punch but yeah, this kinda doesn’t make any sense. Especially since you’ve been very vocal about how much the studio process sucks. With this process you eliminate:
Having to be represented by an agent or manager (not a problem for you since I already know who your agent is).
Having to go through 15 different development execs.
Being fired for no reason (with the exception of bad writing :) )
The possibility of the movie not being made.
Loss of creative control (meaning that usually in these situations, the director, the writer, and the producer are working as a team)
Getting screwed out of money; gross points (just try collecting on net points. Just try. According to studios, The Blair Witch Project is still in the red…)
With the exception of the money from a spec sale, this is a very good thing.
“However, the first time that investors put in $20M and the studios don’t pick up the film — that’s when we’ll see the vision rock.”
Already happened. Anyone know what Edison Force is? It starred Morgan Freeman, LL Cool J, and Justin Timberlake. Only the investors didn’t put in 20 million. They put in 25…
Craig isn’t saying it’s a good thing, he’s just saying it’s a likely thing. He’s also saying that the union will have little influence over it.
Okay, that makes sense
EDISON FORCE was released by sony pictures home entertainment, it is available on netflix, somebody is making money.
I think we’re talking about theatrical distribution here. I don’t think the financial reality of Edison Force is what the investors had in mind.
And just about anything is available on Netflix.
Just about everything is available on Netflix, but of course, when the Wibberleys are doing their “Ask a Pro” they mention their first movie, I go to Netflix to rent it and…it ain’t there.
I am not mechanically inclined, I have a wife and two kids, and the only thing I am good at is screenwriting, or so I’ve been told by real professionals. (Well, they may simply be posing as professionals though their homes suggest they do get paid quite well for something.) Actually, I can make a pretty descent goulash out of whatever’s left in the pantry when we have to choose between paying for electricity or for groceries.
I digress.
The whole matter of our future as storytellers for the cinema makes me wanna overlook my shortcomings, take the leap, and learn how to fix air conditioners. Now if I can just do a deal for one of my scripts and actually get paid for it instead of being stiffed by producers whose “financing fell through,” maybe I could afford AAA Air Conditioning School’s tuition.
There’s a point in there somewhere. Oh yeah, there are a lot of shysters out there who call themselves financiers or investment capitalists (and producers). How do you see guys who have no studio track record team up to come by reliable financing?
“descent goulash”
Freudian slip? No, just an error. Maybe that’s why only producers whose financing falls through are interested in my scripts.
(Actually I’ve done well in competitions, too, and I understand that typos and spelling really matter to them a great deal.)
Rick:
I think it’s extremely important to do due diligence when dealing with independent financing. That means you pay someone you trust, like your own attorney, to make sure they’re for real, that you’re protected, and that you won’t get burned.
You’re absolutely correct to presume that there are a lot of bad people out there in the world.
People who talk a big game but can’t be counted on in the end aren’t exclusive to the indie/private financing world, either.
The biggest flake I’ve ever had to deal with had the money (the day after I had the meeting in which we closed the deal, his company lined up a $50 million line of credit through one of the big investment banks), but it didn’t stop him from hiding and pretending our deal didn’t exist later on.
So diligence is probably always important.
P.S. My next-door neighbor fixes air conditioners for a living. Since he lives in a house exactly like mine, I would venture to guess there’s no guarantees in that profession, either.
I thought this post was about my girlfriend’s vagina.
I see that the New York Observer has a related story:
http://tinyurl.com/ykurld
Craig, thanks for responding to my post. But I do wonder how those not on that studio short list, those who don’t rub shoulders with stars and noteworthy producers, will fare in this bright new trend?
While it does sound great, and God bless those who find themselves in this pseudo-cat bird’s seat, with fewer and fewer spec sales, etc., it sounds like fewer and fewer chances to break in at the studio level. We who are not on said list will find ourselves on the fast-track to teaching screenwriting at the local community college.
(Come to think of it, not bad work if you can get it.)
Jeff, WTF? And before anyone asks, no, I’m not his g/f. I’m just a woman who’s ticked off by his seemingly throwaway one liner. I didn’t find it funny at all.
I wonder if a female posted a pejorative one liner about the size of a man’s dick, I wonder how long that’d remain up and how many replies would be posted to it.
Frankly, whenever I hear a guy (usually comedians) joke about the size of his g/f vagina, or rather, how the size has changed, I always wonder whether his g/f has simply found a “bigger” lover.
Chew on that, Jeff.
Mariama
Mariama:
It wasn’t to your taste, but let’s not get off topic.
“It wasn�t to your taste, but let�s not get off topic.”
Ummm, OK. But where was your admonition to Jeff? How on earth was his comment on topic?
He makes a pejorative remark about women and you expect folks (me) to just shut up and take it?
If that’s the case then I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. I’m not wired to just shut up and take it. I’m a tit for tat kinda girl.
Now, I respect that this is Ted’s and your site, and you decide what stays up and what goes but still … I think Jeff should have some, or rather, should show some respect for the women who frequent this site.
Either that or … well, if he’s not gonna show more respect than you shouldn’t complain when the women (one of ‘em at least) starts to dish it right back at him.
Mariama
Forgive me, but I allow latitude for humor, regardless of quality. I don’t admonish my commenters for their taste, and I do tend to admonish my commenters for admonishing other commenters.
That’s my job. Feel free to email me at admin@artfulwriter.com if you’re offended. I take all complaints seriously. I just don’t want them in the comments section.
I hope you understand.
Craig,
I am glad to see you give humor latitude. I hear many writers make good money with seemingly tasteless humor.
Mariama,
Bless you for your convictions. We all need convictions, though I would be happy to have a couple of mine expunged.
I agree that many people overstep the line of good taste; however, you must pick your battles wisely. The pejorative throwaway one-liner was exactly that, until I read your comment. I was skimming through the messages and passed Jeff’s with simply a quick glance at “vagina.” I did not get it at first read. I read your comment and had to re-read Jeff’s. I still did not get it (I am slow) then I tied it to the title of the post and I thought it was very funny. Tasteless, but funny. Then again, I like Tofu.
If you want a tasteless joke about men’s dick size, the message that follows Jeff’s message contains a link to my “member” website address.
Or, I’ll show you my tat if….. never mind.
With all due respect,
RJ
“Where humor is concerned there are no standards - no one can say what is good or bad, although you can be sure that everyone will.”
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)
Mariama, I second your oppinion. I’d say more, but craig deleted my last two comments which were in strong support of you, so I’m trying to keep this clean. Just know I’m on your side.
Just to be clear, I deleted those comments because they crossed the civility line and contained ad hominem attacks. I didn’t delete them because of whom they supported.
See, Craig, I dig your site and kudos to you for running it. However I feel you’ve got a strange set of standards for it. The golden rule of “do not insult the individual” is not a bad one, until an individual insults an entire gender and gets away with it. The irony of it all is that you reprimand Mariama for getting off topic, as if Jeff’s joke was such a constructive contribution to the discussion at hand. I sense a certain bias that makes me raise my voice.
I understand, your house, your rules. But does that mean all social rules have to go out the window? Set this scene in a bar… Some guy makes a rude remark and a girl in earshot feels offended. You gonna slap your knee and laugh her out of the room? Or apologize politely for your bud’s behavior? Keep it real, man. If you had deleted Jeff’s rude, unfunny, and off-topic remark in the first place we wouldn’t have this little brawl.
Again, this is your show, but always respect your audience.
Great post, and heartening for someone like me who is very comfortable with entrepreneurship. Been a lurker for a while, and had a question for Craig (or anyone else who would like to chime in). Somewhere in the forums — either Q & A or Ask the Pro, I think, but not sure — was a discussion about the inadvisability of sending a spec to a director directly. They won’t read it, if they do it’ll only lead to heartbreak, there are very few directors who can get projects greenlighted by virtue of their name alone…
But in this thread Craig answers “yes” to the question “does this mean that getting a director interested in your script, a director who would be in a good position to approach an independent finacier, would be a tangible and beneficial course of action?”
Has this new (ish) financing method led to new ways to approach directors (and/or stars)? Are agents getting wind of this and becoming more willing to approach talent without the intermediary of the studios? Are directors becoming more willing to read unsolicited material?
If not, does anyone have ideas about how a newbie (with a great spec, for the sake of argument) would take advantage of this new possibility?
Joe:
No, I don’t think directors are going to be any more interested in unsolicited material than they ever were before. They’re inundated with tons of scripts from working writers whose projects are in active development.
It’s a simple case of time to read.
Getting a good agent is still step one, I’m afraid.
Umm, disagree Johnny (and M, too) if anyone should be insulted, it should be Jeff’s girlfriend - he wasn’t saying that about ALL women, just the one silly enough to be called Jeff’s girlfriend.
My wife makes sexist remarks about me, my person specifically to other people all the time (she, for some reason, thinks I’m genetically incapable of washing a dish properly and also unable to put toilet paper on a toilet paper roll. I’m not, of course, I simply have a different set of standards).
She’s not insulting all men, just the one she has to live with - and while it wasn’t a funny joke and it was definitely frat boy distasteful, it wasn’t a statement aimed at diminishing women’s rights everywhere - if anything, it just diminished our view Jeff’s sense of humor.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. It’s like that Writer’s Assistant who sued FRIENDS because she heard offensive (and, she deemed, sexist) remarks in the writer’s room. I mean, come on. Do you expect a group of writers are gonna get together anywhere and not saying something somewhat offensive?
And Marianne, haven’t you seen Scream 3 or 4? I hate to tell you, but there’s a lot of naughty frat boy humor in both films … funny than poor Jeff’s sad joke, sure, but in the same humor city, just in a better neighborhood.
Guys…can we pleeeeeease get back on topic here?
I promise to write an entire post about why “I’m offended” are the two stupidest words in the English language, particularly if you’re a writer. Okay? And then you can all hash it out in there.
If you’re a newbie trying to break in, there’s no shame in going the actual indie route rather than trying to break into this more-expensive-version-of-the-indie model.
“Correct me if I’m wrong,” but wasn’t Mitch Cumstein a legendary figure in Caddyshack as referenced by Mr. Chevrolet Toilet King to his caddy protege. As I recall, twas a scene with “man-na-na-na-na” and “being the ball, Danny?”
I just wanted to pick up on Ryan’s idea that you can go down the “indie” route before trying to get into the mainstream industry.
I’m a real advocate of indie film making, because I really believe we’re reaching a point where cheap digital production means anyone can afford to produce a feature film now.
The only point I’d make about this, is that the indie scene shouldn’t be seen as a place where you make the scripts that you can’t sell in the mainstream market, because although it’s easier to get your work made in the indie scene, all you’re doing is moving the selling problem up a level.
To be successful in the indie scene, the scripts have to be better than mainstream, the ideas have to be more than high concept and the writer also has to factor in the restraints of the budget.
(By the way, I do recognise that by and large this isn’t happening in the indie scene — which is currently awash with films made from scripts that weren’t ready!)
In many respects, the spec script market is much easier to achieve success in, because if your script is picked up, then a combination of the names attached and studio marketing will create sales.
For the lo/no budget indie you won’t have that, therefore your ability to achieve success is ALL about how strong you central idea is and how well you write your script.
The low budget indie route isn’t the easier, softer way.
However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.
Personally I try to keep myself in both markets, writing spec scripts to sell and developing lo/no budget projects for myself at the same time.
That’s the reason I feel comfortable with this change in the way business get’s done. For me it’s just a fiscal scale up from what I’m already dong.
Raging, you are correct, sir, you get the bonus points!