Harpers Magazine: The Life and Death of Hollywood

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,065
Reputation
6,116
Daps
166,795
This is a long but super informative read about how fukked Hollywood currently is. Read if you want, or ignore, but this is impacting you all:


In 2012, at the age of thirty-two, the writer Alena Smith went West to Hollywood, like many before her. She arrived to a small apartment in Silver Lake, one block from the Vista Theatre—a single-screen Spanish Colonial Revival building that had opened in 1923, four years before the advent of sound in film.

Smith was looking for a job in television. She had an MFA from the Yale School of Drama, and had lived and worked as a playwright in New York City for years—two of her productions garnered positive reviews in the Times. But playwriting had begun to feel like a vanity project: to pay rent, she’d worked as a nanny, a transcriptionist, an administrative assistant, and more. There seemed to be no viable financial future in theater, nor in academia, the other world where she supposed she could make inroads.

For several years, her friends and colleagues had been absconding for Los Angeles, and were finding success. This was the second decade of prestige television: the era of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Homeland, Girls. TV had become a place for sharp wit, singular voices, people with vision—and they were getting paid. It took a year and a half, but Smith eventually landed a spot as a staff writer on HBO’s The Newsroom, and then as a story editor on Showtime’s The Affair in 2015.

I first spoke with Smith in August of last year, four months into the strike called by the Writers Guild of America against the members of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), the biggest Hollywood studios. In 2013, she’d begun to develop the idea for what would become dikkinson, a gothic, at times surreal comedy based on the life of the poet, Emily. “I realized you could do one of those visceral, sexy, dangerous half hours but make it a period piece,” she said. “I was never trying to write some middle-of-the-road thing.” She sold the pilot and a plan for at least three seasons to Apple in 2017; she would be the showrunner, and the series had the potential to become one of the flagship offerings of the company’s streaming service, which had not yet launched.

Looking back, Smith sometimes marvels that dikkinson was made at all. “It centers an unapologetic, queer female lead,” she said. “It’s about a poet and features her poetry in every episode—hard-to-understand poetry. It has a high barrier of entry.” But that was the time. Apple, like other streamers, was looking to make a splash. “I mean, they made a show out of I Love dikk,” Smith said, referring to the small-press cult classic by Chris Kraus, adapted into a 2016 series for Amazon Prime Video. “That doesn’t happen because people are using profit as their bottom line.”

In fact, they weren’t. The streaming model was based on bringing in subscribers—grabbing as much of the market as possible—rather than on earning revenue from individual shows. And big swings brought in new viewers. “It’s like a whole world of intellectuals and artists got a multibillion-dollar grant from the tech world,” Smith said. “But we mistook that, and were frankly actively gaslit into thinking that that was because they cared about art.”

Making a show for Apple was not what she’d hoped it would be. What the company wanted from her and the series never felt clear—there was a “radical information asymmetry,” she said, regarding management’s priorities and metrics. After she and her colleagues completed the first season of dikkinson, they waited for the streamer to launch and the show to air. Their requests for a firm timeline and premiere date were ignored. Smith started to worry that Apple might scrap the idea for the streaming platform altogether, in which case the show might never be seen, or might even disappear—she didn’t have a copy of the finished product. It belonged to Apple and lived on the company’s servers.

“It was communicated to me,” Smith said, “that my only choice to keep the show alive was to begin all over again and write a whole new season without a green-light guarantee. So I was expected to take on that risk, when the entities that stood to profit the most from the success of my creative labor, the platform and studio, would not risk a dime.” “It was also on me,” she went on, “to kind of fluff everybody involved in the entire making of the show, from the stars to the line producer to the costume designer, etcetera, to make them believe that we’d be coming back again and prevent them, sometimes unsuccessfully, from taking other jobs.”

Finally, in late 2019, when Smith and her colleagues were two months into production on Season 2, the show premiered as one of the streamer’s four original series. It was an immediate critical success and a sensation on social media. “In Apple TV+’s initial smattering of shows,” wrote the Washington Post, “only ‘dikkinson’ is a delicious surprise.” It received a 2019 Peabody Award; in 2021 it made the New York Times’ list of best programs of the year and won a Rotten Tomatoes prize for Fan Favorite TV Series.

But Smith was losing steam. “I was only allowed to make the show to the extent that I was willing to take on unbelievable amounts of risk and labor on my own body perpetually, without ceasing, for years,” she said. “And I knew that if I ever stopped, the show would die.” It had seemed to her that Apple didn’t value the series, and she felt at a loss. Smith now knows that dikkinson was the company’s most-watched show in its second and third seasons. But at the time, she had no access to concrete information about its performance. As was the habit among streamers, Apple didn’t share viewership data with its writers. And without that data, Smith had no leverage. In 2020, after three seasons, she told Apple that she was done. “I said, I can’t do it anymore. And Apple said, Okay.”

“Passion can only get you so far,” she told me. But she’d stayed in Hollywood. “I’m an artist,” she said, “and I’m never going to stop creating.” The industry was still the only place one could make a real living as a writer. “When people say, Why stay in TV?” she said, “The answer is, There is nothing else. What do you mean?”
...
Financial institutions could snatch up or take over large portions of companies in any area of the business; they could even acquire or substantially invest in groups in competition with one another—and they did, creating types of soft monopoly. Bets were even placed against the traditional industry as a whole, in the form of investments in Netflix, which promised to disrupt and dominate at-home viewing. Today the Big Three asset-management firms hold the largest stakes in most rival companies in media and entertainment. As of the end of last year, Vanguard, for example, owned the largest stake in Disney, Netflix, Comcast, Apple, and Warner Bros. Discovery. It holds a substantial share of Amazon and Paramount Global. By 2010, private-equity companies had acquired MGM, Miramax, and AMC Theatres, and had scooped up portions of Hulu and DreamWorks. Private equity now has its hands in Univision, Lionsgate, Skydance, and more.
...

In the years following the recession, there was, as Howard Rodman put it, “a slow erosion” in feature-film writers’ ability to earn a living. To the new bosses, the quantity of money that studios had been spending on developing screenplays—many of which would never be made—was obvious fat to be cut, and in the late Aughts, executives increasingly began offering one-step deals, guaranteeing only one round of pay for one round of work. Writers, hoping to make it past Go, began doing much more labor—multiple steps of development—for what was ostensibly one step of the process. In separate interviews, Dana Stevens, writer of The Woman King, and Robin Swicord described the change using exactly the same words: “Free work was encoded.” So was safe material. In an effort to anticipate what a studio would green-light, writers incorporated feedback from producers and junior executives, constructing what became known as producer’s drafts. As Rodman explained it: “Your producer says to you, ‘I love your script. It’s a great first draft. But I know what the studio wants. This isn’t it. So I need you to just make this protagonist more likable, and blah, blah, blah.’ And you do it.”
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,065
Reputation
6,116
Daps
166,795
...
At the same time, the biggest IP success story, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, by far the highest-earning franchise of all time, pioneered a production apparatus in which writers were often separated from the conception and creation of a movie’s overall story. “Working on these big franchises is a little bit like being a stonemason on a medieval cathedral,” Stentz told me. “I can point toward this little corner, or this arch, and say, That was me.” Within this system, writers have sometimes been withheld basic information, such as the arc of a project. Joanna Robinson, co-author of the book MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios, told me that the writers for WandaVision, a Marvel show for Disney+, had to craft almost the entirety of the series’ single season without knowing where their work was ultimately supposed to arrive: the ending remained undetermined, because executives had not yet decided what other stories they might spin off from the show. Marvel also began to use so many writers for each project that it became difficult to determine who was responsible for a given idea. Multiple writers who worked on Guardians of the Galaxy, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers, and Thor: Ragnarok have forced WGA arbitration with the company to recoup the credits and earnings that they believe they’re due.

Marvel’s practices have been widely emulated, especially for franchise productions. “Every other studio with big tentpole movies has tried to imitate the Marvel model,” Stentz told me, including “throwing waves of writers at the same project.” “In some cases,” he said, “they’ve gone even further, by convening entire writers’ rooms”—a standard practice only in television. Both the Avatar sequels (one of which is not yet out) and Terminator: Dark Fate were developed this way, he said.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,065
Reputation
6,116
Daps
166,795
But as the dust has settled, it has become clear that there are several significant problems with the new agreement. The writers’-room staffing rules kick in only if a showrunner decides to bring on help at the start of a deal; otherwise, they can write a season on their own. It would often benefit them to go the latter route—budgets, after all, are shrinking—and studios would likely prefer this. One writer told me that by the start of 2024, he’d already seen showrunners use the loophole. As for the data-sharing agreement, a closer look reveals it to be, as deWaard put it, “very limited, and very fragile.” The studios will share viewership information with a limited number of WGA administrators for high-budget shows. The guild can then release that information only in a summary form, which, in the words of the contract, aggregates the data “on an overall industry level.” The guild cannot share any information at all on the performance of individual shows. A WGA representative told me that there would be no secondary process for writers to obtain that data.

The threshold for receiving the viewership-based streaming residuals is also incredibly high: a show must be viewed by at least 20 percent of a platform’s domestic subscribers “in the first 90 days of release, or in the first 90 days in any subsequent exhibition year.” As Bloomberg reported in November, fewer than 5 percent of the original shows that streamed on Netflix in 2022 would have met this benchmark. “I am not impressed,” the A-list writer told me in January. Entry-level TV staffing, where more and more writers are getting stuck, “is still a subsistence-level job,” he said. “It’s a job for rich kids.”

Conover said that the most important facts were that guild leadership had kept members unified and that a new streaming-residuals structure was now in place; they could fight to raise the rates during the next round of negotiations, in 2026. “Once something is a number on a piece of paper,” he said, “you can do a lot with it.” The majority of writers I spoke with this winter said that it was too soon to tell what the impact of the new contract would be. A group almost as large said that the agreement did not address the fundamental problems in the business.
...
 

re'up

Veteran
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
20,648
Reputation
6,243
Daps
64,569
Reppin
San Diego
The studios, now beholden to much larger companies and financial institutions, became subject to oversight focused on short-term horizons. This summer, I spoke with the head of a film and TV studio purchased by a private-equity firm in recent years. “It used to be there were these big, crusty, old legacy companies that had a longer-term view,” he said, “that could absorb losses, and could take risks. But now everything is driven by quarterly results. The only thing that matters is the next board meeting. You don’t make any decisions that have long-term benefits. You’re always just thinking about, ‘How do I meet my numbers?’ ” Efficiency and risk avoidance began to run the game.

this is the heart of it. Private equity.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,065
Reputation
6,116
Daps
166,795
The studios, now beholden to much larger companies and financial institutions, became subject to oversight focused on short-term horizons. This summer, I spoke with the head of a film and TV studio purchased by a private-equity firm in recent years. “It used to be there were these big, crusty, old legacy companies that had a longer-term view,” he said, “that could absorb losses, and could take risks. But now everything is driven by quarterly results. The only thing that matters is the next board meeting. You don’t make any decisions that have long-term benefits. You’re always just thinking about, ‘How do I meet my numbers?’ ” Efficiency and risk avoidance began to run the game.

this is the heart of it. Private equity.
It’s part of it.

It’s not just private equity though. Look at how writers salaries have declined the last 70 years culminating with studio heads—who are not creatives in the slightest—deciding how stories will end in the the MCEU.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,065
Reputation
6,116
Daps
166,795

Robbie3000

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
29,671
Reputation
5,241
Daps
130,921
Reppin
NULL
Big tech has been a net negative for society. Devalued music, movie and television. Made apps that encourage and reward lying, narcissism and constant fighting. Made us addicted and dependent to a fukking phone.

It’s like everything big tech touches, becomes worse. It’s a great cost to a lot of people and benefits of a few.
 

WIA20XX

Superstar
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
6,457
Reputation
3,082
Daps
20,445
It centers an unapologetic, queer female lead

Nobody would have given this show any money 10 years ago, much less prior to streaming.
Reservation Dogs? No.
Virgo? No.

Hollywood has never been a meritocracy or "crazy liberals looking to give marginalized people a voice".

It's always been a business, and usually pushes narratives that reinforce the mainstream.

There are plenty of "artist driven" films and studios that make creative stuff...that nobody wants to see.
Just like there's a lot of factory built uninspired stuff that nobody wants to see either - despite having "brand name actors and directors".

Streaming has streamlined the business of making movies, of making TV. *Pun intended.

So where there might have been a little room with Netflix/Apple/Prime greenlighting stuff that Studios passed on (The Expanse!!!) - there's just less of that.

If it's not a cultural phenom and ratings monster from JUMP (Stranger Things) - then like every other tech product, it gets dumped.

I'm just stating the obvious.

The real question is - when you have platforms like Youtube, Nebula for hosting and "free" means of advertising and marketing via Social Media - what can creatives do when Big Money/Big Hollywood is not interested?
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,065
Reputation
6,116
Daps
166,795
Big tech has been a net negative for society. Devalued music, movie and television. Made apps that encourage and reward lying, narcissism and constant fighting. Made us addicted and dependent to a fukking phone.

It’s like everything big tech touches, becomes worse. It’s a great cost to a lot of people and benefits of a few.
Big Tech is just a symptom.

The people running things are the problem.
 

voltronblack

Superstar
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
4,523
Reputation
1,542
Daps
13,605
Reppin
NULL
The real question is - when you have platforms like Youtube, Nebula for hosting and "free" means of advertising and marketing via Social Media - what can creatives do when Big Money/Big Hollywood is not interested?
:whoo:damn breh that a deep question but I think the ones that are going to answer it will be the younger millennials and zoomers the older Generation like the boomer and Gen x are too bake in on how things use to work when it come to film and tv.:jbhmm:
 

WIA20XX

Superstar
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
6,457
Reputation
3,082
Daps
20,445
:whoo:damn breh that a deep question but I think the ones that are going to answer it will be the younger millennials and zoomers the older Generation like the boomer and Gen x are too bake in on how things use to work when it come to film and tv.:jbhmm:

It's the slow death of regular tv, cable, premium cable, and streaming.

IMO, It's hard for the monied class to really make money in art by having a direct hand on the creative side.

The tendency is to take something new and then force it to be like something that already works. And then keep milking it....
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
39,276
Reputation
1,513
Daps
37,546
Reppin
NULL
This is a long but super informative read about how fukked Hollywood currently is. Read if you want, or ignore, but this is impacting you all:



...

...
So a few things here:

There was a huge drought in talent after Leo, Affleck, Damon's class came. I separate Pitt/Clooney/Roberts from them because those 3 were active in the late 80’s. The lack of talent outside of Michael B Jordan, the dude from The Bear (Jeremy Allen White) and (formerly) Jonathan Majors is obvious, most of the people are on social media or doing straight streaming garbage.

The original films flopped hard. Battleship, John Carter, etc. Even franchises like the Green Lantern and the Lone Ranger (remake) did not move the needle. In the case of the latter, it was an IP that had been sitting on the shelf for too long. I have always said these movies need to be tweaked and re-released every 30 years, otherwise, the public won't care. Original IPs are dead because of poor vision and planning, so we get remakes and Marvel.

Mid budgets movies are gone. Look at any of the early Wesley Snipes films, they didn’t cost 100 million to make. People will make art house films of less than 40 million or blockbusters. The middle is where new stuff should come in, but since it does not exist anymore, this is what we get.

The problem is now, will people give up on writing and acting with AI around? It remains to be seen. But we need better actors. Kristen Stewart isn’t it. Let’s see what Pattinson can do after the new Batman movies and the Superman actor is ok from what I have seen.

But we need more original stuff that people will watch, and that is a much longer long-term challenge.
 
Top