ATTN JMS: Question about producing
RMcCaslin
"hollywood" look down upon that? I am asking this question because I am
working on a movie currently that is being solely banked by some of the
actors and the crew. So far, we are still "in production" though the film is
done in its entirety, but showing no signs of being able to be shown to the
general public.
This is a question that has been sitting around my thoughts for some time
now, and with the conversation on "net" has lead me to ask this.
Thanks for you time,
Diane McCaslin
Jms at B5
>"hollywood" look down upon that?
Define "on your own terms"
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
f-erenc szabo
> >"hollywood" look down upon that?
jms writes:
> Define "on your own terms"
I suppose that could only happen fully if you were paying for
absolutely every aspect of the production out of your own
pocket, and didn't care if the show would actually sell or
not.
Well, there aren't too many multi-millionare philanthropists
making/funding movies or tv shows purely for the hell of it,
are there?
f-erenc
Bob Joesting
>What about producing a show on your own terms. Can it be done, or does
>"hollywood" look down upon that? I am asking this question because I am
>working on a movie currently that is being solely banked by some of the
>actors and the crew. So far, we are still "in production" though the film is
>done in its entirety, but showing no signs of being able to be shown to the
>general public.
It's "easy" to do it on your own terms. All you need
is a huge pile of money and a full cast and crew that
trust your vision and that you totally trust. The problem
comes in when you expect someone to agree to distribute
it when you are done.
With a film it is less complex since if you have
the money you just make the film then look for a
distributor. There are lots of films on shelves
that were done this way but couldn't get distribution.
It get more complex with TV. Normally you are
producing a show as it is being aired. Even if you
have all the resources to produce a five year show
neither you nor the cast and crew want it to sit on
the shelf until you finish all five years. As soon
as you have an agreement for any US TV outfit to
carry your show, you have a suit (or a contradicting
mob of suits) who want to tell you how to change
something. Those who know the least about what
makes good TV are the most insistent that any
contract to carry your show gives them some sort
of creative input. You don't necessarily have to
do what they want, as long as you convince them they
are being taken seriously. Whether you do what they
want or not, they still may cancel the show at any
time.
Get paid to browse the web:
http://www.refmaker.com/members/valen/shtml
Bob Joesting <valen (at) psicorps (dot) com>
Paul Woolverton Jr.
>What about producing a show on your own terms. Can it be done, or does
>"hollywood" look down upon that?
Tom Shales of the Washington Post has an interesting interview that
touches on that topic with David Chase, the creator of HBO's "The
Sopranos." In a nutshell, it appears to depend on which network or
channel you are working for. Most networks seem to be quite hands on.
A few (HBO was so with "Sopranos," I gathered) give the producers much
rein.
To find that interview, go here:
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/16/016l-011600-idx.html
Note that the link is only good for about a week or so at this time.
Once the article is more than 14 days old, it goes into the Post's
archives and you'll have to pay to read it.
If you haven't seen that show, you need to. It's one of the things
that makes HBO's monthly charge well worth it. Like B5, its stories
span many episodes in the telling. And they are well-told, well acted.
pw
Jay Denebeim
f-erenc szabo <zero...@goodmedia.com> wrote:
>Well, there aren't too many multi-millionare philanthropists
>making/funding movies or tv shows purely for the hell of it,
>are there?
I actually know one. Of course he did get to be the main bad guy in
it :-)
Jay
--
I'm looking for a job, for my resume please see:
http://www.deepthot.aurora.co.us/denebeim.html
RMcCaslin
still waiting to find out when it will be released, (we are hoping in about
4-5 months).
Oh the Director of the film is Jonathan Tydor.
Diane
f-erenc szabo wrote in message <388945C3...@interlog.com>...
>> >What about producing a show on your own terms. Can it be done, or does
>> >"hollywood" look down upon that?
>
>jms writes:
>> Define "on your own terms"
>
>I suppose that could only happen fully if you were paying for
>absolutely every aspect of the production out of your own
>pocket, and didn't care if the show would actually sell or
>not.
>
>Well, there aren't too many multi-millionare philanthropists
>making/funding movies or tv shows purely for the hell of it,
>are there?
>
>f-erenc
>
Jerome
f-erenc szabo wrote:
> Well, there aren't too many multi-millionare philanthropists
> making/funding movies or tv shows purely for the hell of it,
> are there?
>
> f-erenc
Which is actually rather sad.
It would be nice if one day one of them would feel like contributing a little to the culture of american or world entertainment and breaking the established paradigms which all too often keep media in such a rut.
I wonder, sometimes, what people like Bill Gates plan to do with all that money, aside from keeping a stranglehold on the software market. People like JMS have influenced minds far more than BG, and certainly more positively, with a lot less money.
Like I said in an earlier post, JMS needs to find a Gail Wynand in his life.
dave
were unaware, Bill and Melinda Gates have funded the worlds largest
charitable foundations, dedicated to such things as vaccinations for
children in under-developed countries, and providing enhanced educational
opportunities for children in the USA and abroad. If I am not mistaken they
have given in excess of $35 BILLIONS to these, and other, causes.
Jerome wrote in message <389B2833...@ctinet.net>...
Jerome
But thrusting a modicum of money towards charity and really taking a personal interest and involvement in supporting things which further human development can be different things. Heck - giving to charity can even be GOOD for an exessively profitable company, tax-wise. Not to mention the advertisement and PR that comes from "giving".
I don't see BG really making a DIFFERENCE in human life, though, considering the amount of money he controls. Only the amount of good that the amount of money he gives naturally does. But do I see a crusade to raise culture? To get truly active in re-vamping the educational system here and abroad? To create words and actions which truly inspire humans?
I feel if I had a net worth of merely $1 billion I could do far more in a year than BG ever has.
I don't see it. Unless there's some secret project or I'm just plain uninformed about Mr. Gates' escapades....
Jon Niehof
> but just in case you were unaware, Bill and Melinda
> Gates have funded the worlds largest charitable
> foundations, dedicated to such things as vaccinations
> for children in under-developed countries, and providing
> enhanced educational opportunities for children in the
> USA and abroad. If I am not mistaken they have given in
> excess of $35 BILLIONS to these, and other, causes.
As a percentage of his wealth, BG donates less to charity
than the average single mother on welfare.
See:
http://www.webho.com/WealthClock
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
"So, will the Andover party have a cash bar?"
"No, there's free beer."
"Uh-oh, Stallman's gonna be pissed..."
--overheard at the Bazaar, 1999