Pings n' Things
Interesting week.
Working desperately to get a new show in the can that had the budget set before the creative was set (it's hard to get a good handle on how much a show costs if you don't have a clear, *really clear* idea of what that show is), and at the same time, fielding pings that are frankly, flattering to be considered for.
This weeks ping came from a reference to large industry player to a headhunter, to me, and it got me thinking again about something I've mentioned a few times here before; meaningful infrastructure.
There was some talk a few years back about reviving the brand of United Artists and all the things it stood for back when it was created as an alternative to what was emerging as a monopolistic studio system that didn't allow artists to grow and flourish.
In the end UA didn't work for various reasons. Partners who saw things differently, yes, but more importantly, the fact that they were an independent studio, and the "major" studios controlled distribution all the way to the screen effectively cut them off from distribution.
However, I still believe there's some merit in the ideas of a studio atmosphere that reigns in some of the "free agent-ry" of today's typical Hollywood creative. There are thousands of creative people in this world and this country who can and will work hard given the proper guidance, tools and leadership (often in the form of a really smart, hard working producer).
What's different today, is that no one controls the distribution; and that fundamentally changes the value of creative meritocracy that isn't necessarily based on the per project/work-for-hire business model.
What today's studios have to offer isn't that they have a racket on whether or not anyone ever sees your work. Instead, what they have to offer the next generation is holistic support, and meaningful infrastructure.
We as executives have to learn to not just recognize new talent but recognize what kind of meaningful support we can give them and make sure they have it. Sometimes that may be assigning them to a great line producer. Sometimes it may be a great DP or even a great stunt coordinator.
Maybe it's time to put some of those "below the line" talents back on an annual salary and give them a framework of support for a new generation of filmmakers who need fertile soil to put roots down in, instead of just the normal "fight for every scrap you can get on your way to the F-U money" that really is the core of our business once you get to a certain point in your career.
These are big departures from business-as-usual in Hollywood, but then again, the idea of filmmakers and storytellers being able to look to the west and say "why in the heck do I need you?" to the studios is a pretty big departure as well.
Hopefully at some point, pings like this weeks turn into real opportunities to try some new things and see if they work. I think given the right leadership, they can work.
Working desperately to get a new show in the can that had the budget set before the creative was set (it's hard to get a good handle on how much a show costs if you don't have a clear, *really clear* idea of what that show is), and at the same time, fielding pings that are frankly, flattering to be considered for.
This weeks ping came from a reference to large industry player to a headhunter, to me, and it got me thinking again about something I've mentioned a few times here before; meaningful infrastructure.
There was some talk a few years back about reviving the brand of United Artists and all the things it stood for back when it was created as an alternative to what was emerging as a monopolistic studio system that didn't allow artists to grow and flourish.
In the end UA didn't work for various reasons. Partners who saw things differently, yes, but more importantly, the fact that they were an independent studio, and the "major" studios controlled distribution all the way to the screen effectively cut them off from distribution.
However, I still believe there's some merit in the ideas of a studio atmosphere that reigns in some of the "free agent-ry" of today's typical Hollywood creative. There are thousands of creative people in this world and this country who can and will work hard given the proper guidance, tools and leadership (often in the form of a really smart, hard working producer).
What's different today, is that no one controls the distribution; and that fundamentally changes the value of creative meritocracy that isn't necessarily based on the per project/work-for-hire business model.
What today's studios have to offer isn't that they have a racket on whether or not anyone ever sees your work. Instead, what they have to offer the next generation is holistic support, and meaningful infrastructure.
We as executives have to learn to not just recognize new talent but recognize what kind of meaningful support we can give them and make sure they have it. Sometimes that may be assigning them to a great line producer. Sometimes it may be a great DP or even a great stunt coordinator.
Maybe it's time to put some of those "below the line" talents back on an annual salary and give them a framework of support for a new generation of filmmakers who need fertile soil to put roots down in, instead of just the normal "fight for every scrap you can get on your way to the F-U money" that really is the core of our business once you get to a certain point in your career.
These are big departures from business-as-usual in Hollywood, but then again, the idea of filmmakers and storytellers being able to look to the west and say "why in the heck do I need you?" to the studios is a pretty big departure as well.
Hopefully at some point, pings like this weeks turn into real opportunities to try some new things and see if they work. I think given the right leadership, they can work.
posted by Jon Lawrence at 9:49 PM
Subscribe to Uglyshz RSS
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home