Seems to me that they could view a fan film the same way they view a Trek novel--a completed work, it goes up for sale, and everyone gets a percentage. Simple, and fair.
Is Paramount/CBS missing out on an opportunity?
- Thread starter Data Holmes
- Start date
I'd just like to know how you divvy up profit amongst a fanfilm *fairly*. With 2 or 3 people making a fanfilm, it might be pretty straightforward. But what about a cast/crew of fifty? Do you divide the profits by 50? What about the people that sat around half the day not pulling their weight? Should they get the same amount? If not, how do you decide what they get? Do you pay them hourly? Do you then need some sort of payroll system to do that?
I think Hollywood is structured the way it is for a reason. It's the system that makes the most sense. I have yet to hear a production and distribution model that works for a non-profit fanfilm that can be translated over to a for-profit film where money is involved. Because when money gets involved, even the best of friends, and the best shared goals and Roddenberrian ideals devolves into good old fashioned greed for the biggest share of the pie.
Food for thought...
Rob
Maybe CBS isn't missing out...IMDB lists CBS Inc. as the distributor of "Of Gods and Men", take a look for yourself: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0070627/ (it's #22 on the list.)
This is exactly how it works with low-budget indie films; they do an amazing amount with almost no money (or time).
And don't major studios partner with indie producers? How does that figure into the union thing?
That's very interesting. I wonder what's up with that.
Another consideration, of course, is the so-called "golden rule" - "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Whoever funds these things will inevitably, eventually, want to control content.
If expenses were underwritten by Paramount or CBS, eventually they'dwant script and casting and all kinds of approvals in order to protect their investment. If, OTOH, the studio agreed to outside funding - bank loans or investors, or what-have-you - to make the necessary hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars available to the filmmakers, then they'd be turning over partial control of their Franchise to yet another group of folks who Aren't Them.
Whoever funds these things will inevitably, eventually, want to control content.
If expenses were underwritten by Paramount or CBS, eventually they'dwant script and casting and all kinds of approvals in order to protect their investment. If, OTOH, the studio agreed to outside funding - bank loans or investors, or what-have-you - to make the necessary hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars available to the filmmakers, then they'd be turning over partial control of their Franchise to yet another group of folks who Aren't Them.
The unions are why making a production is so expensive. It's also why many independent productions are non-union: they can't afford to have three electricians, two of them senior, doing the work of one electrician. Each union seems to think that when divvying up the pot, there's just the studio and their own union, so the studio has PLENTY of money to share with the union.
Fortunately, the unions cannot yet force a studio not to distribute independent films; the studios simply can't make union-free material themselves.
But that's a bit off the point, and I apologize for that.
The concerns about piracy are valid, but possibly not significant: piracy exists now and the studios already do their best to tamp it down. If a studio chose to distribute a fan film, they would undoubtedly afford it the same protections they gave their own properties.
Distribution over the Net could probably be handled by some sort of third party brokerage firm, one that would be able to keep accurate numbers that both the film owner and the studio could trust. On the one hand, this increases the expense of distribution by the amount the third party charges, but on the other hand, decreases the amount of personal bandwidth a filmmaker has to have for their production.
The question of fairly compensating a large production team is a valid one, and fraught with hazards. If you pay everyone a fixed wage, you run the risk of spending more money than the production earns.
If you set up a profit-sharing arrangement, does everyone get an equal share, or are some jobs (because they're tougher or more time-consuming) more equal than others? People who don't pull their own weight will probably find themselves "voted off the island" by the ones who do, but that could lead to politics and popularity contests clouding over the issue of actual merit. (Me, I usually pull my own weight, but I'm usually pulling it from the couch over to the dining room and back again. [grin]) Even so, profit-sharing is probably the closest to "fair" that a large relatively informal group can come.
The amount of control the studio has over a fannish production is also a major concern. The more involved the studio is with the profits of a production, the more say they are likely to demand to "protect" their interests in those profits. The more say the studio has, the less say you have to tell the kinds of stories you want to tell. Depending on how daring you and the studio both are, that is likely to be a problem at some point.
It strikes me as likely that the less control the studio has over the production, the more expensive they'll make it for the producer.
In the long run, I think that the Internet will be a good way for studios and indies to make some money, but fan films will still be over a barrel because fan films don't own the rights to the elements they're borrowing. In the long run, the status quo of having the studios turning a blind eye to the fannish activities is probably best. You won't be able to make any money, but you won't have the studio telling you what kind of stories to make or making casting decisions for you.
Frankly, I don't see fan films ever being allowed to make money: very few, if any fan films will ever have the budget to purchase licensing, and equally few fan films will wish to put up with the amount of oversight that a studio would want to bring to bear. Behind the scenes squabbling over money and other concerns will put even those few at risk of folding their tents after awhile.
Those fan production teams that actually want to make money and are likely good enough to succeed at it will probably have to turn independent: making works that they already own the copyrights to, beholden to no one save their bankers.
Mind you, I would love to be proven wrong, because I'd like my share of the money, whatever that amounted to. I'd love my share of the recognition that filmmakers tend to give only to those who get paid to make a film. But I think that fanfilms will continue to be the red-headed stepchild of film-making: abused least when noticed the least.
Fortunately, the unions cannot yet force a studio not to distribute independent films; the studios simply can't make union-free material themselves.
But that's a bit off the point, and I apologize for that.
The concerns about piracy are valid, but possibly not significant: piracy exists now and the studios already do their best to tamp it down. If a studio chose to distribute a fan film, they would undoubtedly afford it the same protections they gave their own properties.
Distribution over the Net could probably be handled by some sort of third party brokerage firm, one that would be able to keep accurate numbers that both the film owner and the studio could trust. On the one hand, this increases the expense of distribution by the amount the third party charges, but on the other hand, decreases the amount of personal bandwidth a filmmaker has to have for their production.
The question of fairly compensating a large production team is a valid one, and fraught with hazards. If you pay everyone a fixed wage, you run the risk of spending more money than the production earns.
If you set up a profit-sharing arrangement, does everyone get an equal share, or are some jobs (because they're tougher or more time-consuming) more equal than others? People who don't pull their own weight will probably find themselves "voted off the island" by the ones who do, but that could lead to politics and popularity contests clouding over the issue of actual merit. (Me, I usually pull my own weight, but I'm usually pulling it from the couch over to the dining room and back again. [grin]) Even so, profit-sharing is probably the closest to "fair" that a large relatively informal group can come.
The amount of control the studio has over a fannish production is also a major concern. The more involved the studio is with the profits of a production, the more say they are likely to demand to "protect" their interests in those profits. The more say the studio has, the less say you have to tell the kinds of stories you want to tell. Depending on how daring you and the studio both are, that is likely to be a problem at some point.
It strikes me as likely that the less control the studio has over the production, the more expensive they'll make it for the producer.
In the long run, I think that the Internet will be a good way for studios and indies to make some money, but fan films will still be over a barrel because fan films don't own the rights to the elements they're borrowing. In the long run, the status quo of having the studios turning a blind eye to the fannish activities is probably best. You won't be able to make any money, but you won't have the studio telling you what kind of stories to make or making casting decisions for you.
Frankly, I don't see fan films ever being allowed to make money: very few, if any fan films will ever have the budget to purchase licensing, and equally few fan films will wish to put up with the amount of oversight that a studio would want to bring to bear. Behind the scenes squabbling over money and other concerns will put even those few at risk of folding their tents after awhile.
Those fan production teams that actually want to make money and are likely good enough to succeed at it will probably have to turn independent: making works that they already own the copyrights to, beholden to no one save their bankers.
Mind you, I would love to be proven wrong, because I'd like my share of the money, whatever that amounted to. I'd love my share of the recognition that filmmakers tend to give only to those who get paid to make a film. But I think that fanfilms will continue to be the red-headed stepchild of film-making: abused least when noticed the least.
Only if one assumes that just anyone can act in and direct a movie. People putting real money on the line are inclined to protect their investment by hiring or insisting upon above-the-line people with some experience and following, and those people demand a good deal more than union scale.
Stories about employing a guy full-time just to move a potted plant from one side of a set to another are fun, but its the Bruce Willises of the world that make films ridiculously expensive.
I don't assume that just anyone can act in or direct a movie. I have no illusions about my own abilities as actor and director, neither on the positive side, nor on the negative side.
I agree that people making an investment are inclined to go with a known quantity in their investments, regardless of the actual quality of the people involved. We both know that there are actors out there who are good, but only have a local following, and actors who are not very good, but are well-known. Investors don't care about the quality of the acting, they care about the quality of the ROI, as they should.
While I agree that a given star's pay can add up to 10% or even more of a production's costs, I do not agree that they are the primary consideration in the rapidly rising costs of making a film. I do agree that they are doing their damnedest to contribute to the problem (i.e. "getting their share"), but I do not believe they are the primary cause.
Attempting to get back on topic, however, I'd just as soon that Paramount continued to politely ignore most fan films and reap the benefits. (To recapitulate, the benefits are keeping interest in the franchise alive, and the very rare find of a talented fan who can turn professional to the studio's benefit.)
While they certainly have the legal right to put their oar in, I think that it would be akin to killing the goose that lays golden eggs: enforcing their ideas of creativity on the fans would largely stifle that creativity, giving them no long-term gain in either personnel or interest in their franchise.
And make no mistake, Star Trek is just a "franchise" to the powers of the studio. They have no interest in its philosophy, if any, or optimism about the future, or the way that Star Trek has changed the lives of many fans. They are (rightly) concerned primarily about the money that it brings in. Unfortunately, a tendency to concentrate on money in a creative endeavor tends to kill the creativity. Just as too much concentration on the creative aspects can kill the profits. Independent productions and fan films tend to straddle the middle ground, as they are almost entirely motivated by creative impulses, yet they have no money to throw at a problem.
Paramount/CBS's best use of fan films is to subtly encourage them while continuing to turn a blind eye towards their existence, so long as no harm to their intellectual property and profitability occur. As long as fan films continue to take in no money, they serve as free advertising at absolute worst.
