What’s wrong with the business
Writers in film and TV are making less money. For 2009, TV writers brought in three percent less, while screenwriters’ earnings dropped 31%.
In a rough economy, it’s no surprise to find workers in all industries making less, but in the case of the writers, it feels a lot different on the ground. It’s not simply the economy.
Fundamental relationships and business practices are changing. More writers are competing for fewer jobs. Established quotes are being ignored. Mid-tier writers are passed over in favor of the very cheap or very expensive, and even they have a hard time actually getting paid.
Get a group of working — or should be working — screenwriters together for more than ten minutes, and you’re likely to discuss all these issues.
Last week, David A. Goodman (Family Guy), Kayla Alpert (Confessions of a Shopaholic) and I did a panel on KCRW’s The Business, discussing these topics. The show is now online, and worth a listen.
Some important points to emphasize:
All writers in the industry are essentially freelance. Even being staffed on a TV show is seasonal. Writers aren’t “laid off;” they’re simply unhired. That’s true for many jobs in film and TV, from actors to gaffers to costume designers. Writers are pretty much the only craft that can generate their own work, however.
Writing is the R&D of the entertainment industry. Try as they might, studios don’t know which projects — or even which genres — are going to be hits. That’s why they develop a range of properties, knowing that only a few of them will go into production. A studio that doesn’t develop material won’t have movies or shows for upcoming seasons.
Studios are small parts of big corporations. While studios have often been owned by larger corporations, from Gulf+Western to Coca-Cola, the current consolidation and integration of the major studios is unprecedented. Film and TV used to be largely insulated for a downturn in the economy — people still wanted their movies and shows. But now that studios are so tightly entwined with their parent companies, corporate cutbacks hit Hollywood much more directly.
Quotes are both real and imaginary. A writer’s quote is generally whatever she has recently been paid for a roughly equivalent job. 1 If Sasha Dramaturg received $200K for a draft, set and polish2 on a movie at Fox, her quote would be $200K. If Fox wanted to hire her to write a movie, her agents would be looking for at least that much money. Recently, however, quotes are sometimes being ignored. Fox might tell her agents that they’re paying $100K, take it or leave it. If Sasha takes it, her quote is now $100K.3
Writers aren’t unique. While this panel was about writers, every facet of film and television is in upheaval. You can take any profession or craft, from development executive to stunt coordinator, and find uncertainty and anxiety about where this is all headed.
Host Kim Masters did a smart job stoking the conversation, and producer Darby Maloney cut an hour’s worth of material down with remarkable finesse.
One thing that didn’t make the cut was a list that a friend had sent me in anticipation of the panel. It’s more bloggy than radio anyway:
What’s Wrong With The Film Business
The conflict and turnover caused by the buying and selling of companies causes confusion, uncertainty, and weakens morale in the production area.
The “suits” who control the studios interfere too much with creative decisions; the studios should be run by creative people rather than businessmen, lawyers, etc.
The constant turnover of the production head of the studio is disastrous.
Overhead is indefensibly high.
Authority is not clearly defined.
Producers are given exorbitant contracts, and there is no relationship between what a producer receives and the box-office success of his or her films.
Screenplay costs are excessive and and the write-off on stories and contracts is enormous.
While this seems like a very current assessment, the list actually comes from a 1936 report by Joseph P. Kennedy, who was hired by Paramount’s board of directors to determine what was ailing the studio. 4
I find it strangely comforting to realize that the industry was just as broken 70 years ago.
To me, it suggests there’s a cycle to the industry. While we’re in a painful contraction phase now, there is still reason for optimism. Hollywood loves money, and money loves Hollywood. As the economy improves, I suspect we’ll see increased investment in the industry, either through new technology (as happened with home video) or new piles of money (such as foreign investment funds).
It’s a strange time for a writer to be starting in the industry. Not only will you be competing with every other aspiring writer, you’ll also find yourself up against established writers who’ve been forced to cut their quotes. With uncertainty comes caution, and studios will be less likely to take a chance on an unknown writer.
But crisis is also an opportunity. When I meet with recent film school graduates, I remind them that whatever happens next in the industry won’t be something my generation does. It will happen among the 20-somethings, the narrative entrepreneurs who figure out how to make the next great thing. Rather than seeking permission to work in the existing industry, they’ll make their own.
To become one of those inventors of industry, you need to surround yourself with similarly ambitious people. Film school is a good choice, but so is living and working in the right neighborhood in Silverlake or Brooklyn or Austin — or more likely, a place I wouldn’t even realize is a hotbed.
In the KCRW panel, Kayla Alpert made a final point worth repeating: writers can write. As frustrating a time as this is, screenwriters at every level have the unique opportunity to make something new by themselves. That’s a luxury worth more than dollars.
- Quotes work the same for actors and directors. ↩
- “Draft, set and polish” is common shorthand for a writer’s first draft, a rewrite of that draft, and smaller polish on that draft. ↩
- Deals can also be “no-quote,” meaning they’re not supposed to be disclosed. For the animated movies I’ve written, I’ve made significantly less than my quote. ↩
- This list comes courtesy Howard Suber, who makes reference of it in his book The Power of Film. It originally appeared in Leo Rosten’s 1941 book Hollywood: The Movie Colony/The Movie Makers (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1941), Pp. 253-254. Rosten’s book is out of print, but available as a .pdf. ↩
Filed under: Film Industry, Los Angeles, Television, WGA
Articles
October 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
After reading all this, it’s no longer a wonder to me why everything nowadays is either a remake, sequel, or based on something else. Book, graphic novel, video/board game, toys, etc. But hopefully this “cycle to the industry” will end soon.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Sasha Dramaturg is one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet, btw. I’m glad she’s still finding work.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Lol to Bryan.
“I find it strangely comforting to realize that the industry was just as broken 70 years ago.”
That’s pretty much how I feel about the publishing industry (for non-screen writers). There’s SO MUCH changing and shrinking and upheave-ing right now, but the truth is, there always has been. There have always been flaws and evolutions, and yet the industry is still around. Hopefully (for me) it will continue to be.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I agree that writers will succeed by “not seek(ing) permission” from the industry, that they’ll “make their own” work. And it’ll come from, of necessity, and because it’s technologically possible now in places like “Silver Lake or Brooklyn or Austin,” maybe even Booger Hollow, Arkansas. The capability of films like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (and others before it) to succeed in Hollywood is an indicator that new writers should take a similar path. Because of technology things have never been better for making films outside the system.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“Rather than seeking permission to work in the existing industry, they’ll make their own.”
Well said.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I happened to pick up Rosten’s Hollywood at a used book store recently. It’s astonishing how much of what he wrote sixty-plus years ago still applies today. And it’s funny into the bargain.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Yeah, it really feels like there’s a certain amount of “all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again”-ness to this story.
It would not surprise me if the major studio system implodes completely within the next ten years or so. As John points out, they’re owned by behemoth companies that are less and less interested in movies (and less and less convinced they can make money off them).
This will leave a vast creative void that will quickly be filled by smaller independent studios/distributors, who will spice things up with the kind of variety and risk-taking that we barely ever see anymore…
…until they’re gradually bought up by huge multinational companies, who offer them free rein at first but eventually put tighter and tighter restrictions on their content; then replace their creative execs with accountants and marketing guys, and so on and so on…
…until they give up and cash in their chips, and the process starts all over again.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You reminded me of a documentary about Shakespear. If my memory serves me right he stopped writing plays because he could make far more money writing short speaches, challenges and such like for nobles for jousting reenactments that were popular at the time. Partly it was the prestige of him writing for them that ment he could make very good money but there were presumably tiers of lesser known writers working away for less money than he was.
I’m not sure what worries me most – that there was more money in that than being a playright or that there were historical reenactors in the late 1500s
October 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
@ “the list actually comes from a 1936 report by Joseph P. Kennedy, who was hired by Paramount’s board of directors to determine what was ailing the studio.”
Interestingly, it took another 12 years until the anti-trust case “United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.”
The problem is similar today, because the telecom companies that own the infrastructure of the internet (say, AT&T or Comcast) want to control content and distribution but at the same time they can’t agree on how to best monetize the internet. Can you feel the bottleneck?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
All the time I hear people talking about how cheap DV cameras and the web will completely change the film industry and give everyone the opportunity to make and publish films on their own.
Well, honestly, I think that’s delusional. Not because it’s impossible that good films may be made that way, but because no one will really care.
I’m generalizing a little bit, but pretty much the only people watching those semi-professional movies on the web are people who are into movie-making themselves. There’s just no audience for that kind of movie. How many short films does the average person watch on YouTube per year? Probably like one, and I’d guess that one’s going to be a StarWars fan film or something of that sort.
I don’t think viewer habits are going to change fundamentally either. There’s just a little too much crap on the web for that and it’s just a little too easy to just stick to the traditional narrative media like movies and TV shows. Maybe some west coast elitist is going to watch one of those movies once in a while but the REAL AMERICA, those tiny little towns [[ :), ok, let's leave it at that]] but NORMAL PEOPLE aren’t going to do that a lot. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.
People have gotten used to a certain standard of professionality they just expect from the movies they watch. Most of those web-productions aren’t going to live up to that.
But that’s not even the point. Let’s take a look at John’s “The Remnants” here. It’s FAR more professional than most web-productions are ever going to be, it looks pretty slick, it has COMPETENT ACTORS (something most hobby productions, even the ambitious ones, are NOT going to have), there’s even some sort of “fan base” that’s willing to watch it. And still, the interest that movie has been able to generate isn’t…. excessive… I suspect.
Please don’t get me started with that Joss Whedon sing along series. That CLEARLY is something completely different.
We just can’t all be writers and directors and what do I know what else. Even if we could, that would completely devaluate professions like screenwriter or director, EVEN if everyone practicing it would be good at their job. “We can’t all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars”, but even John is some kind of a star, not exactly on a Brangelina-level, but enough for most of his readers to want to be in his position…
… which is not the entire point of wanting to be a screenwriter, but a huge part of it. I guess. You DO want to be important and special (in a non-disabled way). And posting short films on Youtube isn’t going to compensate for being denied that unalienable right to being a hollywood professional OR having your screenplay read by one.
Alright, I could go on like this for hours, and I kind of lost direction half way through this, but, whatever, you should always stop when something’s the most fun. I hope my point kind of came across in weird, confused Glenn-Beck way.
As I sit crying in front of my computer and start laughing manically I’d like to point out to everyone that I’m not a native speaker of English. So, sorry for any linguistic deficiencies you might have some across.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
THE Joseph P. Kennedy wrote the report for Paramount? JFK’s father?
October 15th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
The question I can’t stop asking is not whether a select few talented writers will be able to break through by refusing to seek permission within the industry, but whether our changing industry can keep alive the idea of the “professional screenwriter”.
With writing assignments become harder and harder to snag, with more writers competing for fewer jobs, with the spec market seemingly drying up, will it be possible for middle class writers to continue to make a living just writing?
October 15th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
@ Mark–I don’t think Shakespeare ever gave up on plays, that would be heartbreaking! I’m pretty sure he just retired and gave the Globe over to his second-in-command.
John, excellent quote about the twenty-something screenwriters rewriting this business. I think the best way to make a movie is also the fastest–make it yourself!
October 15th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“To become one of those inventors of industry, you need to surround yourself with similarly ambitious people. Film school is a good choice, but so is living and working in the right neighborhood in Silverlake or Brooklyn or Austin — or more likely, a place I wouldn’t even realize is a hotbed.” – Nashville, TN!
@ Ethan “… everything nowadays is either a remake, sequel, or based on something else…” Orson Welles made Macbeth and other Shakespeare adaptations, as well as Touch of Evil and The Trail, which weren’t “original” movies. Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder was based on a play. Rear Window was based on a short story. To Catch a Thief was based on a novel. It is, in my opinion, a misconception that it is new for Hollywood to get ideas from elsewhere.
Also, I can’t wait to be part of the generation that creates a “new” film industry. I think it will look a lot like bands. Or at least I would like it to. What I mean is, small indie companies who take it upon themselves to pile into a van and tour around screening their film all over, to create a sort of fanbase, then (or, meanwhile) distributing the movie online for those people who either saw it or have heard of it by word-of-mouth to buy it. I mean, I’m sure people already do this kind of thing. I guess I’m just saying that I want to do it, too. I’m a film student and I am desperately eager to make a “real” movie.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
@Ben Sitzer:
Yup. That Kennedy.
@Andrew:
I think professional screenwriters are here for a good long while. But the demands on a screenwriter are changing, and his remuneration seems to be decreasing. So it’s an open question whether the same kinds of people who were drawn to the field over the past 10 years will continue to pursue it.
I avoid using the term “middle-class” with regards to screenwriters, because the working writers in the middle of the pack are earning a lot more than the national median salary. But it’s true that the mid-level writer who could afford to live in LA and send his kids to private school is facing a difficult period right now.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
@Lukas First of all, I would not have guessed you weren’t a native English speaker. Your english is much better than my anything else will ever be, so don’t worry about that. As for the internet- it’s a useful tool but it’s not THE answer, for all the reasons you mentioned. The internet is not the place people go to find quality filmmaking. Videos of people pulling pranks on each other, short comedy sketches, and guys playing with superhero action figures have defiled YouTube to the point that nobody takes it seriously. However, I do think that online downloads and having a strong internet presence is a great way for people who are not billion-dollar corporations to get their film in front of as many eyes as possible.
I still plan to take my films “on tour” as it were, but that doesn’t mean my movies won’t be available online.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Er… sorry if I ask something stupid but, wasn’t there a script writers’ strike some time ago? At least the media had the story running for a long time. Wasn’t it intended to avoid a scenario like the described above? John, thank you for your blog, it is part of my personal Best of Web.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I’m imagining that many of us here are regularly reading Creative Screenwriting and Script magazines, both of which feature, on a bimonthly basis, between them, at least a dozen stories of fresh-new-to-the-business screenwriters either selling specs or getting such heat from a spec (and not selling it) that they have now been hired to write something (usually a pre-existing property that a prodco or studio owned.)
This is a pretty familiar story to anyone who reads those magazines by now. Let’s believe that the days and likelihood of a six figure spec sale for a “first time” (getting paid) screenwriter is either gone or too rare to discuss, and talk about breaking in–by which I mean, getting through the door to such a degree that you can quit your day job–off a hot spec and start landing assignments.
So my question is this: are those maybe 10 or 12 stories every two months like the only people in all of Hollywood who are making it, or is that truly a realistic possibility for some of us (write a good spec, get it in the right hands, land a manager/agent, get an assignment)? Or have those opportunities totally dried up as well?
Further, what does a contract draft/set/polish for a new/emerging screenwriter payday look like? $75K? $100K?
What do you folks (and John, of course!) think? Are LOTS of emerging writers breaking in these days off of hot specs as samples, landing feature assignments, and being able to quit your day job off of that?
I’d be very curious to see what folks think, and I may post a variant :) of this question at the artful writer boards if not too many folks weigh in.
John, as always, thanks for all you do with this blog. I was so saddened by the recent passing of Blake Snyder not just because of the sadness of his passing so young, but because I never e-mailed him to let him know how great I think his book was (I discovered it just before his death.) You’ve got many decades to go, but I just want to say thanks. You are generous and so helpful, and I appreciate having you.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
You made less than your quote on Titan A.E.? I can’t see someone taking that job out of love of the project.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I’m a man of few words. That being said, I’ll stick to my reputation by simply saying this was an informative post, and for that I thank you John.
Cheers!
October 15th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
@ Jeremy
I’d do Titan A.E. for love of the game in a second. I dropped other things and drove out to meet & talk to the lady who wrote the children’s book adaptation when I saw it in Borders and I hadn’t even read a single one of the JA scripts yet. – I was simply raised to love both Tron & Treasure Island… so I felt like I belonged… – Besides… Indiglo-Digital-Alien-Manto-pods vs. The Space Pirates is a gangsta-hard geek trump card no matter who’s playin it.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:06 am
NB: I work for a living in a bank until I get the big gig.
John is right to point out that studios are part of bigger conglomerates that depends on bigger expanses than a movie ticket (i e Sony sells stuff costing hundreds /thousands dollars, meaning less things right now because customers are poorer, less in the mind of spending their savings)
The investors totally dont trust banks at the moment because the crisis proved that the financial economy is so complicated that banks actually know squat about risk management and whereabouts of the investments they select for their clients
hence, the money is there but their owner dont wanna use banks as middle men to invest it in the economy
The trend in banking right now is the 100%safe investment right out of the box with no bells and whistle. The investor wants to know what he puts his money in and must be able to acknowledge it himself as safe. But before trust comes back, he wont put a lot in and rather lend to States (the US, The EU,..) which pays low rates, but for sure, and for ever if needed (a State loan never bankrupt, it s restructured in time)
That s why indeed money flows slower & fewer in the movie industry at the moment, with a little to no risk policy.
You better off self financing something smaller yourself than hope for a breaktrough in business right now. I know. it sucks. Bankers are the shame of the human race, yet it s the only sector right now that still pays bills just as before the crisis…
October 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Where exactly does the audience figure in the great Hollywood morass? Women over 40 will be the single largest demographic in the US by 2010. You can count on one hand all the movies featuring female protagonists over 40 released in the last 18 months. Take a way Meryl Streep and you are down to a couple of fingers. These women may not show up on opening weekend– they are too busy living their lives. But they are avid consumers of media. Why is a big theatrical opening weekend the only economic model? Why aren’t these consumers targeted, courted and provided with content that is about them? Oh and by the way, they also have the most disposable income. No wonder Hollywood is going broke.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I don’t think Hollywood is going to be reinvented from the ground up. Smarter, more independent-minded films will never be mainstream. Just look at the recent history of Hollywood since the early 70s – the Biskind books that track the last 30-40 years — ultimately, anybody in this business wants to be on top, and on top means earning dollars for the players, getting the recognition, attaining some semblance of creative license in a very cutthroat industry.
The Spielberg and Lucas movies – Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones – really set the stage for where we are today. Spielberg may have wanted to smaller films that were more personal, but he did what he could to survive and develop a career — who can blame him? Summer blockbusters rule the day — these are what most people want.
I love summer blockbusters. But I love great indy/art films as well. There’s a balance — I don’t want too much of one. But if I had to choose what to watch after a long day of BS at work — I’d go blockbuster. I know a lot of educated people who don’t want to think when they watch a movie — they want to be entertained. They don’t agree with Sean Penn that movies should mean something. They just want to be entertained.
Simple meat and potato mass audience productions will always meet the needs of the masses — these will always attract the most eyeballs. These will receive the most focus from studios. These types of movies are why studios were acquired by publicly traded firms — because there is a lot of potential money in these big movies. And making 8 big movies to gross $2B total is a lot more simple than making 65 small ones to gross $2B total.
8 is simple. 65 is difficult — it takes more work.
In the end, we all prefer simple.
If the studios implode — we’ll just end up in the same spot again.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I love “The Business” and listen to it weekly. I’ll download this one tonight!
I’ve been fortunate enough to have a steady freelance career in reality tv these last few years. As horrible as things can be in the reality biz, sometimes I think it’s the only safe place to work now, with the state of the industry being what it is. I keep waiting to show up to my next gig and find out I’m working with a bunch of scripted vets – it seems like the next logical step if this downturn continues.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Good interview, John. I was wondering why feature film writers’ earnings dropped more than ten times that of TV writers, 31% to 3%. Is it simply because there are less features being made, and that screenwriting fees/quotes are less standardized and therefore more susceptible to shifting radically downward, or is there more to it than that?
October 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Another incarnation of the cutback discussed in this article, and one which may help some writers save their quote, is the one-step deal. Typically a writer’s deal is broken down into steps — a draft and a set of revisions. The writer is paid in increments to start and deliver the draft and the same with the revisions.
A one step deal guarantees the first draft and the writer is paid his pro-rated amount for that one draft. Theoretically, that is all he owes the studio/producers. Should they want to proceed with developing the draft, the writer will be paid for the next step in accordance to his quote or the preset deal, which if you have a good lawyer or agent, should total out at your current quote.
So in a way, your quote will remain intact. Almost all studios are using this formula now. Especially for mid-level and new writers. Although some of the “big guys” are being offered this as well. Take it or leave it. From what I understand, the “big guys” who are in demand usually leave it because they can make much more from a production re-write.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I want to contribute a less popular angle to this dialogue because this industry is already full of enough naïve optimism, and people are going to get hurt if nobody tells them they have options. Here we go…
“As the economy improves”
First off, this is not going to happen. Things are going to get very bad. The purchasing power of our phony dollars is declining fast. Inflation will nullify the savings of millions of Americans. Our living standards are going to be dramatically lower. The ad slump will get worse. Our focus will be on material needs. All of this (and much more) will have very negative effects on our film industry.
It may very well take over 20 years for this country to develop a manufacturing base again, to regain the quality of life slipping through our fingers today. Then and only then, will our media industry be ripe once more…
Keep in mind, before this 20 year transformation begins, it will take a change entailing complete reversal of the current Washington policies, in order for us to become a nation of savings and capital investment. And from the looks of it – this change is not happening any time soon.
Now, those of us who are just starting out in Hollywood, know that we have a tall ladder to climb. The question we should all be asking ourselves is: Is this ladder up against the right wall?
In America, it is not.
In Hollywood, we may have become comfortable with our gambling-on-gigs/casino-like culture, but recognize this table has no chips, the vault was looted long ago, and the government is at the bar, trying to hand out as many free drinks as possible to prevent you from sobering up.
This is not a transitioning phase of the film industry, this is a decline.
Perhaps something or someone will come out of nowhere and save everything or “reinvent” it, but this is very dangerous thinking. Also, this miracle will not precede our production of commodities. Though, I agree with John that there are opportunities to be had…
They are abroad. Go elsewhere. I’m talking to you.
Foreigners will not continue to invest in Hollywood. Why would they? When they will be busy investing in their own film industries. And if you listened to these words, you will be there when that money comes pouring in.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Listening to this, I had this image of prostitutes with pens in their hands frantically roaming the streets of Hollywood for their next job.
I just think that if we want to do this with any sense of purpose or…joy…we need two careers. One writing, one doing something else to prop up the writing.
Ugh.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
The part I find the most frustrating is the idea that a screenwriter is reduced to desperately trying to attach to a movie because it might actually see production — not because it’s a movie the writer is actually in love with. Is there any real pleasure derived in constantly chasing projects solely for the reason that they will get made — even if these are movies you really have no interest in? At what point does this stop being about love of movies and become a grueling job like any other grueling job?
October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Elliot — Being a working screenwriter means writing for commerce. You are hired for a job. Much like the guy who mows my lawn. If you are lucky enough to have the financial means to be choosey about the jobs you seek/take then you are in the minority.
The trick to all this is not to love the jobs you take, but instead, at the very least, feel that you can turn them into something you love… Or at the bare minimum, just like.
Getting movies made is the only way a writer earns power. You become a stronger commodity when your work attracts talent. (Directors and actors). If this happens, then you will be given the opportunity to choose or initiate projects which you “love” from the get-go.
If it doesn’t happen, then it’s up to the writer to dodge the feeling of this job being grueling. And for the record, even if you love something… It can still be grueling. But that does not have to be a bad thing.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I always find this site incredibly informative and depressing at the same time.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Good post John. “Film school is a good choice, but so is living and working in the right neighborhood in Silverlake or Brooklyn or Austin — or more likely, a place I wouldn’t even realize is a hotbed.” There are even things happening in your old stopping ground of Des Moines, Iowa. (And the lesser hot bed of Cedar Falls.) I’ve been beating that drum for two years now about writers and filmmakers popping up in flyover country. Will a film version of artist Grant Wood’s regionalism rise up in this economy? We’ll see.
screenwritingfromiowa.wordpress.com
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Behold the blossoming of an artistic dystopia whereby even the best filmmakers in the world must resort to taking their films “on tour” in the hope of turning over a pittance. The next generation’s Spielberg will likely have trouble making the payments on his Kia.
I hope I’m wrong.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:47 am
It is easy to figure out what is wrong with the business- the cash cow that was DVD sales is fall off the cliff. Much like the music business and CDs. Noone is buying DVDs anymore – DVD sales account for 43% of Film Biz revenue. NETFLIX, and ITUNES is not going to replace this revenue.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I sadly have to agree with Jerry that the economy is not going to recover any time soon. Many filmmakers choosing to stay here in the U.S. are going to have to tour their films in foreign markets and festivals to get it known, which isn’t a bad thing but it is going to be necessary for recognition even back here in the U.S.
“Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”
We are in the stage of dependence.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
There’s no “right” to make it. There’s the environment, your innate talent, and your capacity for work while you’re also slogging around Starbucks or Wells Fargo. You can’t change the first two, and can affect the last little except by minor improvements in organization, and giving up drinking, your sparkling social life, etc.
How many writers get to write cool, interesting stuff and make a middle class income? I’m not knowledgeable enough to guess, but it can’t even be 500, can it? Maybe 100? 200?
And more importantly, how many slots open up out of that ~200 each year? Against how many thousands? Sounds about like the odds of getting a job as an NBA player to me.
I think it’s not too bright to be planning on making money from this except for the eight of you who’ll prove me wrong. I’m learning production and making the damn things myself even if I have to shoot it in f*(&(g Pixelvision. My product will probably fail, too. I won’t be saying ” I wanted to..”, I’ll be saying “I did.”
I remember reading some Sufi story about people who wanted to be musicians, it said fast for three days and then have delicious meals cooked. If you still prefer music, than be a musician.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Great article on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s tax returns and finances and what sacrifices he made to be a working writer – the American Scholar – http://www.theamericanscholar.org/living-on-500000-a-year/