Movie-makin'

Many people believe that all you need to maker a movie is time and money. Well that is basically all you need, except for all of the hoops the creative people must jump through in order to produce a film.

There is more to film production than just a producer with a load of money, for starters one needs a script in order to make a film. This is where the lowly scriptwriter jumps into action. While many scriptwriters get short end of the script in terms of financial compensation without them there would be no basis for a film. Many films that are based on previous works, such as books or comics, must jump through additional financial hoops in order to become established for film production. Ownership must be established and royalties must be paid out in order for a movie like Spiderman get the green light.

While scriptwriters may have the thought and insight to create a film's narrative they usually lack knowledge in the legal process. This is when the lawyers and agents come in. These scumbags scoop up profit from the real artists, forcing them to lose a part of their soul.

The most important person (in my book) is the producer. This person is the star of the show, the bee's knees, captain of the football team! The producer pulls the project together, coordinating with everyone from the scriptwriters to the directors. He/she is responsible for attaining film cast and crew (through hiring of casting directors) as well as the equipment. Some producers are cool, making films like National Treasure, while others are sellouts making crap like three variations of the same show. Just kidding, that was Jerry.

The Cost of Planning: Financing of Film

While it seems obvious to most that huge amounts of money is invested into the production and distribution of films, many do not think about the amount of time and money it takes to plan movies, and a large majority of them will never make it to production.

Before a script is written, contracts involving ownership rights and royalties will have to be created for movies based on another piece of work. This means that fees are paid before anyone even knows if a quality piece of work will be created. Also, this is just one step during the planning of a film where entertainment lawyers will be hired. The screenwriters themselves do not typically make a large sum of money and are uncertain if their products will ever sell, but a few are able to create contracts with studios to create scripts for specific movie ideas. In addition to hiring writers, a producer or director may be paid in advance for a specific film in a development deal.

Agents and managers receive their fees during the planning phase; both represent their clients and secure their involvement in a film but there are some key differences. Agents may help plan product placement in a film, because they represent writers who can involve products early on, they have an interest in future versions of the product, and they generally receive 10 percent of their client’s payment. Managers are able to develop and produce media and they receive 15 percent of their client’s payment.

Once a producer is hired, and a movie is green-lighted, the organization for the production begins. A producer will have to find locations for filming, rent studio space, hire a crew, and secure equipment to be used to production. Personally, I thought this was the most surprising cost, because I never thought about the expense of equipment and the fact that studios themselves may not take on this financial liability - due to the high cost of cameras and other equipment, most films will rent these products. There is a huge amount of money spent through every step of creating a movie, from planning and overhead to production and distribution, most of which is not obvious to the audience.

The Positives and Negatives of Pacts in the Film Industry

        Production contracts (pacts) have an extensive impact on the film making industry.  A pact is an arrangement made between players, studios, and production companies.  These pacts can force players to give studios a chance to purchase a script before other studios can see it, set up a profit scenario where individual players, studios, and company backers all share the profits made from the film, and a set up a distribution system where the studios distribution and marketing branches are used exclusively.

         In the current market, these pacts have led to extremely successful business operations due to the preferential deals acquired by both sides.  This can be seen by the overwhelming amount of movies in box office created by large studies, a good amount of which were engaging in pacts.  These pacts help make the filmmaking process much more efficient.  Two reasons that pacts have increased the efficiency of filmmaking is that they narrow down the selection of scripts studios have to go through and it helps ensure funding and loans.  In the film making industries, there are millions of scripts being sent to studios and a ton more being pitched verbally.  Studios don’t have time to read and listen to these opportunities, so having pacts with good writers and studios limits there options on scripts because they will be brought scripts by proven writers directly and they can purchase these scripts immediately.  Second, it is easier to get funding.  Banks often require a completion guarantee before supplying a loan.  If banks know that the studio has an interest in the movie being finished, due to the sharing of profits, and that a large studio is producing the movie they are more likely to complete the movie.  This is especially important with the rising cost to create films.

        Unfortunately, pacts have a negative impact on the film industry and can also on the quality of texts.  Pacts, to an extent, have made the film industry a closed market.  With first look deals, scripts are sold without competition.  Other studios never have an opportunity to bid on them and they never enter the market.  Further, with distribution and production deals, studios limit who they interact with during the whole process.  The quality of texts can go down because the writers involved in pacts may be producing worse scripts than other writers, but they will often receive the funding instead because of the pact.  Further, there script is more likely to be produced and finished because the studio has a stake in the profits.  This could be lower quality movies on the market, and leave great ones out.

Pacts: Convienience yet a demise?

The arrangements that are held by different Hollywood studios, companies and individuals, regarded as pacts. The successful production and distribution of films is difficult and so it's understandable to see the convenience and appeal of these pacts across different various actors responsible for the production of films. For those companies that are part of a these "pacts"a lot is gained from producing films using this structure.

The continual usage of successful companies allows for security in the creation, distribution and marketing of the film. With successful producers, recognized production studios and successful marketing, it is not a surprise that this structure has been created amongst industry players to allow for effective ways to create films. There is also economic security in utilizing pacts in the creation of films. Wasko outlines these economic gains when telling us what categorizes pacts.  The industry has a whole is effected by this systematized method, creating an economically driven film industry.

Pacts are not without consequences however. The set structure and companies that are used under these pacts changes the ability for the creation of truly independent films, mostly due to economic limitations. Financiers are more willing to go with films that may be seen as proven due to it's creation within a pacts. Similarly, the text is also influences by the continuous creation of films through pacts. With the constant complains of repetitive story lines and special effects in movies, it is not surprise when considering the production of films with in pacts.


Pacts strongly effect the way that film-making process occurs. It is evident that it's structure allows for confidence in the creation and distribution of films. Yet the very nature of pacts questions the ability to create films that are new, fresh and unlike previous ones.

Pacts: Hinder, Help, or just Convenience

Pacts are agreements between production companies and studios for development and output of (in this case) film.  These production agreements lead to continuous film production between studios and companies and have a positive correlation with box office success.  The production pacts speed up the production process; take Wasko's example of Michael Crichton's story and Fox studios.  The process was shortened because Fox was the only company the book was sold to instead of having it shopped around.

So why the big deal?  Why does it matter if all production pacts do is speed the process up an lead to box office success.  This is true but with production pacts many writers, ideas, and concepts cannot break into the market.  These pacts effect the process because it provides a shortcut for producers and studios, they are cost-effective, and a successful pact has been shown to lead to box office success; the flip side is they are not inclusive they do not provide a lot of opportunity for new ideas and talent to enter on the production side of film.

There is no denying that production pacts regulate and effect the film industry.  They secure success for major companies and are not really helpful to the "little guy."  Regardless of the negatives in concerns to the "little guy" they are economically valuable ways for production companies to continue success.  In any business money is the driving factor; the film industry is no different.  Unfortunately the desire for economic success has a negative effect on the production of texts.

The pact process does not include many "little guy" companies.  It does not provide great opportunities for inclusion and promotes consistency with major name companies.  Who knows how many ideas, concepts, blockbusters, and potential this system has disregarded or left out.  While the system creates convenience for big name production companies it has a negative effect on the production of texts and on "little guy" companies. 

Music in the Digital Age

Major changes in the recording industry have taken place in recent years due to the online availability of music. These changes have seen inevitable and obvious to most everyone except for the record labels themselves. Due to their resistance to change their business models, the major record labels have been struggling to remain as successful – with threats of lawsuits used as a common tool.

While the record company’s mistakes are often discussed, I wish to look at attempts to successfully adapt from different areas of the music industry. What it means to be a musician has slightly shifted, in positive and negative ways, as innovative self-promotion becomes a standard part of the game. Musicians are able to draw attention to themselves online, before even receiving a record deal, giving more individuals the opportunity to garner a following, which no longer has to be located in one specific region before working on a national presence. While increasing the diversity of musicians in the field seems ideal, not all of them can make lasting careers. It appears that an artist’s potential to build lasting presence has decreased and most artist’s whose music makes it onto the charts will be one-hit wonders . There is still the potential for smaller artists to earn money, however, because the public’s interest in spending money on music has shifted – not disappeared. While many people are not buying music traditionally, they spend money on bands in alternative ways  such as through concert tickets. Finally, the label EMI has adopted a new business plan, becoming more of a “rights management company” who also help release music. While this appears to be a lucrative plan, it also ignores the needs of many artists at EMI.

I wish to examine the economic incentives driving decisions such as this, how the digital age has redefined the roles of artists, and who these changes are benefiting.

Youtube: Our Generation in Videos

For my final paper, I want to look at YouTube and the general phenomenon of posting videos to the web for millions of viewers to see. I also want to look at the content of these videos and analyze how and why YouTube came to be and how it has completely changed media on the Internet. YouTube started off as a site that people uploaded videos to for free and has morphed into a central place for music videos, movie and TV clips, video blogs of all sorts and much much more. TV shows have been created around the content of YouTube with programs like Tosh.O and stars have risen to fame through discovery on YouTube (Justin Bieber) and infiltrated every corner of our visual culture today.

I am fascinated by the amount of content that YouTube holds and what this means for our visual culture. I want to look particularly at why people are so drawn to express themselves with videos. What compels them to do this and how has YouTube been able to control the content that is loaded to its site? People of all different ages post things to the site and this poses problems with content and the appropriate nature of certain videos. YouTube provides a unique platform for anyone and everyone with a webcam or a video camera. People have the freedom to create any video they want and this is what draws them to the site. However, this can’t be completely true and I want to look into the content regulation in terms of the First Amendment and the FCC that YouTube is regulated by.

I also want to look at how popular videos on YouTube are circulated and viewed by millions of people. What makes a popular video? How do you get your video to become a sensation? YouTube is so specific to our generation and with all of the social media regulations being instated I am curious to see how YouTube fits into the mix.