A film is made or marooned in the pre-production phase, specifically in the strength or weakness of its producers.

A producer who is not an alpha-minded, aggressive problem solver who cannot professionally and dispassionately project manage something as daring as even a small film project has no business being a part of your production.

Producers have a bad rap as the kill-joys and bean counters of a production who are always saying “no.”

That’s hyperbole, but its points to an underlying truth – you need someone with a cold, calculating perspective that can ensure the production is completed.

Find a good producer – and not some thief who wants to be in charge of the budget so he or she can siphon off 40% of your budget to subsidize their unjustifiably lavish lifestyle. That’s not happened to me yet, but even the big studio have plunderers just hoping someone is stupid enough to put them in charge of a huge escrow account.

• Make a rational list of milestones, then hit them.
• Keep your lines of communication open at all times. Weekly if not daily updates.
• Know where your money is going.
• Cut losses and personnel who cannot or will not perform up to your expectations.
• Make a great film, regardless of how much money you have.

Have fun.

David Jetre
Writer | Producer | Director

This post is in direct reply to David Jetre's post:

Notes On Producing

The attitude that comes through on Jetre's post is of the Producer as Enforcer with foot on your neck (or very close to this attitude).


As a crew member on at least 3 very low budget independent film productions to date (1st, Sound Assistant, Lighting, Casting), I am still learning.

In reply to Jetre, I have had the experience as AD of dealing w/ writer-directors who are simply air-heads w/out any ability to organise themselves well, and more recently, again as AD, with a first time writer (stage)-director-producer who is now doing his first independent film as a 70+ min. feature.

The second has shown himself to have a glib tongue, but in reality, the whole attitude behind him has gone from doing you (those who volunteer) a favor, to dictatorial, w/ his foot on your neck. He is very exasperated, having to deal with people dropping out (crew & cast), numerous changes that he is in large part responsible for. A great believer in the DIY ethic, he is finding that the collaboration required in filmmaking, has to a large extent escaped him. He is determined to push through no matter what, but at the expense of alienating those who were best able to assist him. This is a very small community, and while he's getting help from some of the other filmmakers, he is finding that his workload is increasing as more people drop out.

I had misgivings about this chap & his attitude, and after discussion w/ him recently,
I did pull out today though it doesn't make me look good.I had put off my decision for about 2 weeks. I had been involved with this project in other capacities for about 4-5 weeks

Essentially, this chap confirmed for me that he does not intend to create either a 'shooting script', or a shot list, two components that the AD is meant to provide in conjunction with the Director. This chap states that my requirement of these will be a hinderance to him, as he must 'wing it', that his film is special, and that he doesn't want to be told how it should be done, and that things will change anyway. More tellingly, as AD who was expected to put in 12 hour days for up to 7 straight days of shooting, there was little from him in the realisation of provision of food & drink for the crew & cast.Perhaps begrudgingly.

A lot of these people have done 2 or 3 piddly little nothing shorts, are between their 20 & 30s, and I have had to contend w/ attitude, of one sort or other, and a lot of egotism.And others seeking to undermine me doing my work by playing politics. I admit I am not entirely innocent; however, I do take my work seriously, & I have been trying to do an extremely proficient job, but was reminded earlier and again more recently, that this is merely an activity among hobbyists, who do this for weekend films. Really? What seems to underlie this is an enormously disproportionate amount of ego in relation to actual ability and talent. In short, they're nothing but a bunch of shits (and in some cases among the young women, out to break balls) who seem to have got lucky.

In researching for the job of AD, I came across a project for young directors from high school under the auspices of the DGA, and DGA working professional mentors.The director was 14 years old, and initially started out with the power going to his head, and eventually realised that if he was going to get the co-operation he sought, he would have to learn to treat his crew with respect.

So. Mr. Jetre, the above lengthy reply is to be read in its short form. Learn to treat the crew with respect, keep them well fed and looked after, and don't ever, ever think of working with them while you have "one foot on their neck". It ain't Hollywood, we haven't unions, but you breed enormous hostility if you have this attitude, and don't expect anyone to assist you if you are going to carry on like that. Otherwise, you deserve to have your project die a quick and painful death in pre-production.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post is in direct reply to David Jetre's post:

Notes On Producing

The attitude that comes through on Jetre's post is of the Producer as Enforcer with foot on your neck (or very close to this attitude).


As a crew member on at least 3 very low budget independent film productions to date (1st, Sound Assistant, Lighting, Casting), I am still learning.

In reply to Jetre, I have had the experience as AD of dealing w/ writer-directors who are simply air-heads w/out any ability to organise themselves well, and more recently, again as AD, with a first time writer (stage)-director-producer who is now doing his first independent film as a 70+ min. feature.

The second has shown himself to have a glib tongue, but in reality, the whole attitude behind him has gone from doing you (those who volunteer) a favor, to dictatorial, w/ his foot on your neck. He is very exasperated, having to deal with people dropping out (crew & cast), numerous changes that he is in large part responsible for. A great believer in the DIY ethic, he is finding that the collaboration required in filmmaking, has to a large extent escaped him. He is determined to push through no matter what, but at the expense of alienating those who were best able to assist him. This is a very small community, and while he's getting help from some of the other filmmakers, he is finding that his workload is increasing as more people drop out.

I had misgivings about this chap & his attitude, and after discussion w/ him recently,
I did pull out today though it doesn't make me look good.I had put off my decision for about 2 weeks. I had been involved with this project in other capacities for about 4-5 weeks

Essentially, this chap confirmed for me that he does not intend to create either a 'shooting script', or a shot list, two components that the AD is meant to provide in conjunction with the Director. This chap states that my requirement of these will be a hinderance to him, as he must 'wing it', that his film is special, and that he doesn't want to be told how it should be done, and that things will change anyway. More tellingly, as AD who was expected to put in 12 hour days for up to 7 straight days of shooting, there was little from him in the realisation of provision of food & drink for the crew & cast.Perhaps begrudgingly.

A lot of these people have done 2 or 3 piddly little nothing shorts, are between their 20 & 30s, and I have had to contend w/ attitude, of one sort or other, and a lot of egotism.And others seeking to undermine me doing my work by playing politics. I admit I am not entirely innocent; however, I do take my work seriously, & I have been trying to do an extremely proficient job, but was reminded earlier and again more recently, that this is merely an activity among hobbyists, who do this for weekend films. Really? What seems to underlie this is an enormously disproportionate amount of ego in relation to actual ability and talent. In short, they're nothing but a bunch of shits (and in some cases among the young women, out to break balls) who seem to have got lucky.

In researching for the job of AD, I came across a project for young directors from high school under the auspices of the DGA, and DGA working professional mentors.The director was 14 years old, and initially started out with the power going to his head, and eventually realised that if he was going to get the co-operation he sought, he would have to learn to treat his crew with respect.

So. Mr. Jetre, the above lengthy reply is to be read in its short form. Learn to treat the crew with respect, keep them well fed and looked after, and don't ever, ever think of working with them while you have "one foot on their neck". It ain't Hollywood, we haven't unions, but you breed enormous hostility if you have this attitude, and don't expect anyone to assist you if you are going to carry on like that. Otherwise, you deserve to have your project die a quick and painful death in pre-production.

You don't wanna go there, man.

There's no place for personal beefs on this forum (and even at a working level, no call for it)

ATP:

Having just revisited this forum I just recently read your reply to my post on Producing.

Posts like yours spark an instant urge to correct your gross misapprehensions, but that is quickly tempered by the reality I don't have time to address every erroneous perspective: if I spent my time trying to re-explain what I've already explained, I'd never get any work done.

So, I'll be short.

You apparently have some impression of me that is extraordinarily negative, despite the fact you and I have never met.

It is also obvious that you did not read my Notes on Producing, or if you did, English is not your first language.

Your post is largely negative personal experiences that you feel oddly compelled to transfer to me.

I will focus my limited response to your paragraph, in which your wrote:

So. Mr. Jetre, the above lengthy reply is to be read in its short form. Learn to treat the crew with respect, keep them well fed and looked after, and don't ever, ever think of working with them while you have "one foot on their neck". It ain't Hollywood, we haven't unions, but you breed enormous hostility if you have this attitude, and don't expect anyone to assist you if you are going to carry on like that. Otherwise, you deserve to have your project die a quick and painful death in pre-production.

Now, sentence by sentence:

With regard to treating my crew with respect, sir, you should know everyone has committed to return to my next film. I have been lauded by cast and crew alike, troublemakers notwithstanding, for delivering a safe and enjoyable set. Thus, I refute you.

This phrase "one foot on their neck?" That is your phrase -- I've never used it. Please do not accuse me of false arguments you invent for your own purposes. I have never been accused by anyone who actually knows me of such boorish behavior.

"Breeding enormous hostility?" What are you talking about? Nobody is angry. The only person exhibiting hostility, imaginary hostility by the way, is you. Are you bipolar?

As far as the life and death of my projects, your petty rants about people and experiences you know nothing about, contribute not a jot to their success.

Summary:

I don't know who you are, and its pretty obvious you don't know who you are either. You have accused me of things I did not do, and did not say.

Thus, you are revealed as a bullying cyber-fraud and demoted to irrelevance for your inability to be truthful.

__________________________________________________ _

ZenSteve:

Thank you for your clarity and stance on this bizarre cyber-attack.

It was inevitable that such people with catastrophically flawed perspectives would be encountered in any ascent within the film industry.

David Jetre

That's something I've always looked forward to having is a producer, someone who really seems to have an idea of what I want to do and has a slightly more (I'd hope) idea than I do of how to make that happen. I've seen and been aware of some great partnerships between filmmakers and producers. I'd love to have something like that in my corner should I ever finally get to see one of my scripts realized.

I wouldn't mind being a producer myself, but I'm not sure I could handle the insanity involved.

Most people getting into moviemaking, especially at the micro budget levels, mistakenly think they are writer/directors when they are writer/producers. The art of directing is more than just "getting the script photographed".

The producer is the director's boss, not his bitch. The producer in most cases is the OWNER of the film, not the janitor.

The original post was concise and rang very true. I don't see anything he has written that belies any beef.

David,

Life is short, and as I have mentioned earlier, at this stage of my life, I must husband my time or resources. So, I'll get to it.

General considerations:
i) your original post contains language and an attitude that indicates a certain aggressiveness, virility and masculinity that seems to have gone south with your reply to my post. I am bewildered to the point to question whether they were written by the same person--or should I say, persona. Or is that personas?


Specific considerations:
i) your point about my post being (or containing) largely negative personal experiences has some truth to it.

ii) felt compelled to ascribe or 'transfer' to you.
This was my reaction to the language and tone of your post.If you re-read your original post, you will see that the attitude contained within it is of Producer as Enforcer. My words yes, but the attitude is your own.


More specifically, I took exception to the line-

"Cut losses and personnel who cannot or will not perform up to your expectations."

Perhaps when someone is working on a set wherein you are paying them, then this is quite acceptable. BUT when someone is not being paid, this attitude is unacceptable.

You have been like so many others, culture-bound in your pronouncements. In Asia, and among those who have NO experience, even if they are westerners, this view is interpreted differently from how I am sure you considered it.

I reacted to what I perceived at the level of my direct experience, someone taking your view and using it to justify their haughty, arrogant, perhaps even patrician view. Your statement that there are experiences & people I know nothing about is correct--but there are others, relevant, of which I _do_ know, and had elaborated.


Whether you were or are directly responsible for your words is clearly debatable. However, words such as yours _do_ have weight,and in the wrong hands, can become twisted to justify the perpetrator's actions. History shows us this very clearly. I presume that you have studied history, or are aware of it, and its significance and application as a guide to present general, existence?

iii) If you wish to be regarded seriously, please stick to the issues & skip the ad hominem attacks.


PS. I was talking earlier today with someone who has made a number of short films, a feature and who is now moving around with some of the lesser known 'second tier' production companies in Hollywood. He has been offered and accepted a re-write job.

This person has assisted the same second writer-producer-director I mentioned earlier in this thread. His experience of this person's attitude, and conduct is less than complimentary, and supports my own assessment of the same writer-producer-director.I had never mentioned my views to this director at all. So what does this tell us?

"Cut losses and personnel who cannot or will not perform up to your expectations."

Perhaps when someone is working on a set wherein you are paying them, then this is quite acceptable. BUT when someone is not being paid, this attitude is unacceptable.
In my experience this attitude is essential. Especially when
working with people you are not paying. People who cannot
or will not perform up to expectations drag a production down.
Others need to pick up the slack left over by people who are
not doing their job to their fullest. That is unacceptable to
me - as both a crew member and as a producer. Inexperienced
people can - and do - work very hard. Those who do not work
hard should be let go immediately.

And it's not limited to a certain aggressiveness, virility and
masculinity - I have seen female producers fire unproductive
workers at the same percentage as male producers. Actually at
a higher percentage because I have worked with more female
producers than male. It's simply good business. It hurts some
feelings, but no one who works hard is fired and if someone who
is NOT working hard is fired they have the option in the future
to change their attitude.

I have produced several no budget movies using unpaid crew - I
have directed several no budget movies using unpaid crew and I
have been an unpaid crew person. In your eyes firing people who
cannot work up to expectations unacceptable, haughty, arrogant,
perhaps even patrician and shows the Producer as Enforcer. In my
eyes the producer IS the enforcer and when using unpaid
crew I simply cannot afford to keep someone there (and feed them)
who is not performing up to my expectations.

Is that culture-bound?

You have been like so many others, culture-bound in your pronouncements.
I cannot speak for David, but I can tell you with some level of
experience and understanding that we ALL are culture-bound in our
way of working. We cannot be any other way. I'm sure that if I were
producing in Asia I would have to change my methods based on
culture. But David isn't and I'm not. Your attack on David because he
doesn't share YOUR culture was uncalled for.

You commented on one of David's points. I would love to hear your
comments on the other four:
• Make a rational list of milestones, then hit them.
• Keep your lines of communication open at all times. Weekly if not
daily updates.
• Know where your money is going.
• Make a great film, regardless of how much money you have.

It would be interesting to hear your thought based on your culture. A
culture that is very different than mine.

What an odd turn this thread took.

I'm with you, David, the producer makes or breaks a production. Producing is frikkin' hard! (Well, for me, anyway; some people rock at it.) I've had to produce every one of my films myself because I live in a place where there is no one else, and every time I swear I'll never do it again. If any producers out there are thinking of moving to Astoria, Oregon, please look me up! :D

All:

In my many posts earlier this year, I adopted a tone of writing commensurate with the position.

For the artist I was a bit wistful and imaginary, for the director I was direct, and for the producer I was blunt.

It cannot be stressed enough that every position on any film set, regardless of size or experience, must be run fairly, humanely and effectively. There are no exceptions, no place for divas, nothing that excuses proper conduct.

That being said, yes, I do the believe the producer must possess an analytical mind. He, as much as the director, and some other positions, must be able to audit the production minute-by-minute and determine who (if anyone) is dragging the productin down.

On my first production, Shroud, I hired a sound person who claimed they were qualified and seemed to have a strong resume. On set, however, it was abundantly clear, that this person did not know what they were doing. As a result, the crew grew steadily angry with this person, moods shifted, time was lost, and when you lose time, you lose money. We found out the day they came to the say (brought by a friend) that they did not even have their car.

This person was very nice, if not entirely humble, and very considerate. Unfortunately, those fine qualities were trumped by their true lack of experience, adaptability and familiarity with the digital equipment they claimed they knew.

Did I scream at them on the set? Did I humiliate them in front of the crew? Of course not. They were privtely counselled, given one warning, and when it obvious their performance was not going to improve, I quietly pulled them aside and released them from the set.

Now, I did this despite the fact they were paid half of their entire production fee up front. Did I pro-rate their fee against the second week they were not going to be there (in other words, they were paid up front for 2 1/2 weeks and was fired after 7 days)...? No, I let them keep it. I told them expressly why they were being released, calmly and clearly. I released them and had them taken back to Dallas.

I now pay weekly, as a result of that.

That is an example of having to be absolutely focused on your film. The person in this example was not adding to my production, but hindering and fostering negative emotionis in my set. They were let go.

As a consequence, I had to re-dub that entire week's worth of work -- the entire week -- because the sound quality that they were in charge of was so poor and unusable.

So,yes, I stand by my original post that the producr (in this particular case) must be pretty damn honest when it comes to who is helping and who is hurting. That being said, there is never a reason to be tyrannical, demeaning, humiliating to anyone. You can be calmly, if not pleasantly, effective.

Now, there were other people who were first-timers on my set. They were given responsibilties, paid, and fed. They sat at my table during lunch. But they were not entrusted to critical functions on the set. Don't get me wrong, everyone has their first day on a set, be it grip, director or director of photography -- but guys, it takes one day to realize who belongs where, and who's really trying and contributing.

The grips who came out to help from the colleges? I met everyone of them, shook their hand, thanked for personally for coming to help our production, and I let them know what kind of set I ran and what I expected from them. All in the most pleasant of conversations.

Everyone had a great time: No injuries. No thefts. No drama except what we put on film.

You don't have to be some stomping, screeching auteur to be efficient and dedicated.

But beneath that gentlemanly demeanor, was a guy willing to fire and replace anyone who jeopardized my time, my cast and my crew, and my investors.

I will do it with a smile and handshake, but I will fire you in a heartbeat if you risk the time, money or lives of people who are in my charge.

Did that help any?

David

Well, I am new to this post and just kind of read what was going on. Didn't really think much of it until David's last post which brought two questions to my mind. You said on your first production "Shroud" - does that mean you've only produced one movie or do you mean your personal productions you financed?

Also you said "it takes one day to realize who belongs where, and who's really trying and contributing", so why did it take you a week to fire the sound guy?

Just questions I am curious about. I don't mean anything by them. I have worked with dozens of producers in my day. Just trying to form an opinion on this topic and everyone contributing.

First, I have be involved with about 3 short films, that's it. Shroud was my first feature film. I served as writer, producer, director and production designer...and some other hats.

I also co-financed the film.

Secondly, all my points I made were made expressly as HINDSIGHT: Obviously, what I am sharing with you are my conclusions on having made my first film, and survived it.

Certainly, if I had known then what I know now, the sound person would have been fired on day 2, assuming on day 1 they still didn't know what they were doing and were warned.

Because it was my first film, that first week was totally new -- it was virgin territory. Not having done my own homework on sound, I did not know enough to recognize immediately the sound person's shortcomings. It took my very talented Lighting Director Michael Morlan to bring it to my attention. His experience in sound far exceeded my own.

Additonally, I sort of knew the sound person was not working around days 3-4 but the earliest the replacement could arrive was day 7...so we endured.

Next question?

David

No other questions. Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it. How long until "Shroud" comes out I guess would be my last question.

We are negotiating with our distributor as we speak. We should know a date by the end of September.

I will be making an announcement on IndieTalk once the deal is finalized.

Thanks for your interest.

Jetrefilm

deleted duplicate post

I think you were more than fair and diplomatic with your sound person, considering you were misled to begin with. I always know going in that my crew doesn't know jack, so I'm ever vigilant to point out that the mic goes on the actor facing the camera. ;)

On my most recent movie, I'd hired a professional makeup artist to create creatures for the scary scenes. She had to drive two hours to location, and when she arrived she informed me that she'd forgotten to bring along the prosthetic appliances for the actors' faces. To retrieve them required a four-hour round trip.

From the tone in her voice, I knew she fully expected me to explode in a rage. I must admit, I was a little shaken, but this was my third feature as producer/director so I'd withstood many such seeming disasters. It took only a quick glance at my storyboards for me to realize that, by the time she got the rest of their bodies made up and we shot all the stuff that didn't show their faces, her assistant would have returned with the appliances.

I told her, "Hey, don't stress about it. There's plenty to do in the meantime."

She was hugely relieved and busted her ass to do her best work. In the end, we didn't lose one second of shooting time due to the oversight. Plus, the actors were in much better spirits because they only had to wear the stifling facial appliances for half of the day.

To date, she has not billed me for that day's work, and it's been over four months.

When it comes to producing, the cool head prevails.

Find a good producer – and not some thief who wants to be in charge of the budget so he or she can siphon off 40% of your budget to subsidize their unjustifiably lavish lifestyle. That’s not happened to me yet, but even the big studio have plunderers just hoping someone is stupid enough to put them in charge of a huge escrow account.
Yeah. You need a bullet proof contract to prevent that from happening, and you need to be in charge of the money.

Find a good producer – and not some thief who wants to be in charge of the budget so he or she can siphon off 40% of your budget to subsidize their unjustifiably lavish lifestyle. That’s not happened to me yet, but even the big studio have plunderers just hoping someone is stupid enough to put them in charge of a huge escrow account.


I'm curious about this statement. Do you have any examples
of this ever happening?

I'm not suggesting there aren't any bad people who are also
producers, but is this a real fear you have based on stories
you've read? It seems to me in the big studios the producers
are trying to find a way to keep earning a living and producing
movies. Not siphoning of 40% of a films budget so that can
live well.

Are there any big studio producers you feel do this?

A film is made or marooned in the pre-production phase, specifically in the strength or weakness of its producers.

A producer who is not an alpha-minded, aggressive problem solver who cannot professionally and dispassionately project manage something as daring as even a small film project has no business being a part of your production.

Producers have a bad rap as the kill-joys and bean counters of a production who are always saying “no.”

That’s hyperbole, but its points to an underlying truth – you need someone with a cold, calculating perspective that can ensure the production is completed.

Find a good producer – and not some thief who wants to be in charge of the budget so he or she can siphon off 40% of your budget to subsidize their unjustifiably lavish lifestyle. That’s not happened to me yet, but even the big studio have plunderers just hoping someone is stupid enough to put them in charge of a huge escrow account.

• Make a rational list of milestones, then hit them.
• Keep your lines of communication open at all times. Weekly if not daily updates.
• Know where your money is going.
• Cut losses and personnel who cannot or will not perform up to your expectations.
• Make a great film, regardless of how much money you have.

Have fun.

David Jetre
Writer | Producer | Director


Dave,

I've written, directed and produced 8 films so far and to be honest you can only shoot what is available not what you want and this fact is what makes them lok like bad guys in the eyes of writers and directors.

nobody wants a bad product, a writer gets paid upfront so does a director but a producer has to run around after the production is over to market the product if has tried to save money in the produciton and not think of having a good product thenhe'll have a tough time selling it.

this might be offending to you but whoever says it sounds like a guy who has little to no idea about how movies get made.

regards,
Ace.Inc1

Since I am my own producer (with two others) I've not had to worry about people stealing from the ledger.

However, I recently watched two movies, both made for between $80K - $100K and I was dumb founded how poor they looked. This is not hyperbole, it looked like the shot with some cheap 1980's video camera. Everything was abominable: acting, lighting, directing, editing, production design, et al.

It was like they just showed up and, quickly through some lines out for some untalented actors to speak, and just winged it all.

When I pressed both production teams as to what the hell happened, they made all these excuses, but what really happened was quickly revealed: the management team spent all the money.

The writer took $25K, the director took about $25K, and the producer took about $25K. Bottom line, they paid themselves and invested nothing into the film.

Whereas my original comment was directed at producers, it really goes for any member of the executive team who takes a disproportionate amount of the film budget (i.e., the ledger) for fees.

These guys impoverished their own film and it shows. Worse, the film just sucks.

Neither me, nor my producers, have received a single dollar for our work on Shroud, and it is going on 24 months.

Of course, had we known how much hard work it was going to be, we would have gotten more money to shoot Shroud with and we would have been paid for our time. Oh, well, live and learn.

As far as producing -- of course, obviously, you do your best and you walk away with what you can. Film is not some arcane, impenetrable, inapprehensible mystery dance where you never know what you're going to get. There are variatioins, adaptations and adjustments, but you better have [expletive] vision or you are you are going to dash up against the rocks. In film, as in everything else, you damn well better know more than you don't know. Film is a journey: pick where you want to go, pack accordingly, and go there.

The whole point, guys, is to assemble the best team. That team is made up of positions, and what is great for one position is not necessarily best for another position.

So I repeat:

The Producer is a pivotal role that requires an assertive and analytical mind who can take the project from inception to distribution with skill, saavy, force if necessary, and innovation through an even hand and a cool head.

It's not rocket science -- it's movie making, which is far worse (lol).

Make a plan. Stick the plan. Change the plan when necessary. Find a good producer to enforce the plan.

Have fun.

Make a movie.

Share the memories.

Jetrefilm

In my experience this attitude is essential<snip>Is that culture-bound?


Point taken. Culture-bound? Ham-fisted, playing hard ball, kicking head because you can? This may not be you, but if there are others out there like that, it might work for them, but not for me. I am at the point in my life, where I know what works for me, and what doesn't, whom I can work with, and whom I can not.

IF this same attitude encompasses an expectation that I (or anyone else) will work up to an 18 hour day, with the _possibility_ that I (they)_may_ be fed and provided suitable and sufficient liquid replenishments, as WDP did, then I am unable to state directly in a public forum such as this my thoughts for any who condones and/or employs such behaviour.



In relation to WDP, he has shown a serious character flaw, based on the attributes I have mentioned. In essence, I believe WDP to be slightly delusional. I think WDP is a bullshit artist, misleading everyone and no-one, and perhaps doesn't really believe his own PR. But WDP persists in using most any selling point he can to simply rope people in to fulfill his 'artistic vision', for what ultimately amounts to a vanity product, in much the same way as vanity publishing. It is going to go nowhere, and is unsaleable. There is really very little in it for anyone else. Something akin to this view has been independently confirmed by another party whom I know.

If you consider my view excessive, then what do you think of the this same person --WDP, a Westerner and first-time indie filmmaker-- who gets commitment by having people "buy" their role in his film? And the money raised in his fund-raising games nights (as entre to participation in his film) seemingly used to reimburse himself for his expenditure on his equipment?



I cannot speak for David, but I can tell you with some level of
experience and understanding that we ALL are culture-bound in our
way of working. We cannot be any other way. I'm sure that if I were
producing in Asia I would have to change my methods based on
culture. But David isn't and I'm not. Your attack on David because he
doesn't share YOUR culture was uncalled for.

I would like to correct a misinterpretation. I am a Westerner--a Caucasian male, who has lived in Asia for many years.I explained earlier what I took exception to, and the circumstances surrounding it. If some here perceive me to have reacted excessively, then I think they might now know why.I did not want David's views to be misinterpreted and abused by such an example as I provided. He might very well be reading in this forum.


You commented on one of David's points. I would love to hear your
comments on the other four <snip> based on your culture. A
culture that is very different than mine.

As our cultures are very similar ie. both of us are westerners, I think I am unable to comment as someone from another culture.

"IF this same attitude encompasses an expectation that I will work up to an 18 hour day, with the _possibility_ that I _may_ be fed and provided suitable and sufficient liquid replenishments, as he did, then I am unable to state directly in a public forum such as this my thoughts for any who condones such behaviour."

He really didn't feed you for 18 hours? What is suitable and sufficient liquid replenishments?

If this view is considered insufficient, or excessive, then what do you think of the (same) Western indie filmmaker who gets commitment by having people "buy" their role in his film? And the money raised in his fund-raising games nights (as entre to participation in his film) seemingly used to reimburse himself for his expenditure on his equipment?

David - Is this really how you spent the money you raised? People really didn't buy into their role did they?

ATP:

To whom are you referring:

"In relation to this chap, he has shown a serious character flaw, based on the attributes I have mentioned. In essence, I believe him to be slightly delusional. I think he is a bullshit artist, misleading everyone and no-one, and perhaps doesn't really believe his own PR. But he persists in using most any selling point he can to simply rope people in to fulfill his 'artistic vision', for what ultimately amounts to a vanity product, in much the same way as vanity publishing. It is going to go nowhere, and is unsaleable. There is really very little in it for anyone else. Something akin to this view has been independently confirmed by another party whom I know."

Jetrefilm

Guys, you must be MORE SPECIFIC if you are addressing a point I've made.

TO BROOSKY:

Are you referring me when you ask:

"David - Is this really how you spent the money you raised? People really didn't buy into their role did they?"

Because you are not citing my opinions, but ATP's.

So clarity?

David

ATP:

To whom are you referring:

"In relation to this chap, he has shown a serious character flaw, based on the attributes I have mentioned. In essence, I believe him to be slightly delusional. I think he is a bullshit artist, misleading everyone and no-one, and perhaps doesn't really believe his own PR. But he persists in using most any selling point he can to simply rope people in to fulfill his 'artistic vision', for what ultimately amounts to a vanity product, in much the same way as vanity publishing. It is going to go nowhere, and is unsaleable. There is really very little in it for anyone else. Something akin to this view has been independently confirmed by another party whom I know."

Jetrefilm

Hmmm. For all concerned, my references are to Writer-Producer-Director (WPD for short) to whom I referred in post #2. NOT David.

"IF this same attitude encompasses an expectation that I will work up to an 18 hour day, with the _possibility_ that I _may_ be fed and provided suitable and sufficient liquid replenishments, as he did, then I am unable to state directly in a public forum such as this my thoughts for any who condones such behaviour."

He really didn't feed you for 18 hours? What is suitable and sufficient liquid replenishments?

If this view is considered insufficient, or excessive, then what do you think of the (same) Western indie filmmaker who gets commitment by having people "buy" their role in his film? And the money raised in his fund-raising games nights (as entre to participation in his film) seemingly used to reimburse himself for his expenditure on his equipment?

David - Is this really how you spent the money you raised? People really didn't buy into their role did they?

Please kindly re-read post #2.

Anything else anybody want to bring up?

Jetrefilm

Oh... sorry. My bad. I was confused obviously. I thought because ATP talked about a writer-director-producer and then David called himself a writer-director-producer that I thought... well nevermind. I apologize for my previous posts. I get it now I think...

It's all good.

Jetrefilm

I have been a producer, first, followed by Actor, Director, and writer as well as the C.E.O. of my own production company. On my web site, which I admit could and will become better, as I learn more about making a web page. I have been in show business since I was in diapers more and I do mean a whole lot more than fifty years ago. I have made money and I have lost a lot of money making my own films and other productions. I have ghost produced (did their paper work without screen credit) on more than 4815 productions. I give this information as a basis for the next few statements. As a producer that has been in charge of investor's money, dipping into the escrow account can lead to a lot of legal problems including violations of several SEC rules. Secondly, the film industry is a very small world and word about that kind of dishonesty will kill your chances of working on very many more, if any, productions. When i worked for studio, I was paid a Producer's fee that amounted to 5% of the total budget, but even that is misleading because a lot of the residuals for actors actually came out of my end. I spend a lot of hours on any film I do. I make the budget, the schedules, approve the script, deal with the unions and their insane contracts, deal with vendors, actors, and crew, secure locations, rent or buy equipment, arrange paychecks, negotiate distribution contracts, meet the various fringe requirements and the labor requirement set by the various government agencies that we have to do to make a movie, acquire insurances, work out publicity campaigns and advertising, attend film festival, industry conferences, and try to convince the director that using a camera on a jib will give them a better artistic shot than the helicopter, that costs a lot more money, and anything else that comes up during development, preproduction, production,post production, and after release. My least favorite job is firing someone that needs to leave. I do not like to do it but if my film is going out of whack because someone, then I will cut out the poison. I do it because I have learned from being to nice in this respect that it cost the production more money, and in a few cases, actually cause the shoot to collapse and that is not fair to the people who worked their tails off to make something wonderful. The good news is that it happens a very rarely. After reading your posts, I agree with your assessment of what a producer is and what he or she does. Keep up the good work.

In addition, on a lighter side of things, one of the posts asked if any producer is going up to Astoria, Oregon give him a call. Well, I have been there (Kindergarten Cop) and found it quite lovely but you have a group of Sea Lions at your marina and one of them took my Rolex. If I come up there again, I want a SEA Lion Guard :)

Hey, wow, Amburlesk! I've been off the board for a while (editing, y'know) so I hadn't seen your post. You were up here for KG Cop, eh? I probably saw you (I hung around the set a bit).

I'm dying to know how the sea lion got your Rolex!!! Tell me you didn't try to pet him! :D

I have been in show business since I was in diapers more and I do mean a whole lot more than fifty years ago. I have made money and I have lost a lot of money making my own films and other productions. I have ghost produced (did their paper work without screen credit) on more than 4815 productions. I give this information as a basis for the next few statements.:)
I’m sorry I didn’t see this post back in September. But I just MUST
comment on it.

Amburlesk has “ghost produced” 4,815 productions and he mentioned
in another post that he started in production in the 1970’s. If he
started in exactly 1970 that’s 123 productions a year - 10 productions
a month - for 39 years. In it’s heyday MGM produced 50 film per year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Screen Actors Guild
and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees appx.
1,000 (963 average) movies are produced in the US each year - this
includes non-union but not “amateur” productions. So using his number
he has consistently been involved in 12.7% of all movies produced in
the US for the last 40 years.

His production output rivals that of MGM, Warner Bros. and Disney
from 1930 until 1970 (40 years). Those studios produced a
combined total of just over 5,000 films in the same time period
he produced just under 5,000.

I know he hasn’t posted since September, but I just had to point
this out.

I noticed that too. Assumed it was a typo. :)