A disturbing trend I've noticed in film development

Not paying people. And some Very Big Companies are to blame.

I know that LA-based production has dropped to historic lows but there’s another, even more critical, part of the film and television pipeline that feels to me like it’s either already completely broken or on the way to breaking entirely and that is… DEVELOPMENT. As the film economy continues to become more and more conservative, I’ve noticed a troubling trend with some Very Big Companies that I’ve had general meetings with lately.

If you look up any toy company, board game company, video game company, publisher, or just about anyone else who in some way controls intellectual property, odds are they have recently formed some kind of production arm responsible for developing and producing film/TV based on their pre-existing IP. Some of that IP might even be extremely famous and extremely profitable for these Very Big Companies. So it would make sense for them to want to capitalize on their brand awareness by making movies and TV shows that already have some name recognition. With that in mind, they call in writers and directors and tell them “Hey, we own these properties, would you be interested in the possibility of adapting any of them for film or television?” Basically, this could and should work like any other creative job — the company would find a few prospective artists that they may want to hear pitches from (I’ve written about how pitching for these kind of “Open Writing Assignments” works), hear those pitches, pick one, and then commission someone to write what is considered a “work for hire.” It’s how we all think of Hollywood working, whether with original ideas or not. Like the opening of The Player.

However, and here is where the disturbing trend comes in, many of these companies also say “but we do not finance development.” What does that mean for us, the writers and directors?

Well… it means exactly that. Despite being very large corporations, sometimes with balance sheets in the billions, these companies are not willing to risk a measly WGA Minimum to pay someone to work on a movie based on their toy, game, or widget… Instead of spending any money at all (which is “risky”) these companies propose that writers/directors develop a pitch for one of their pieces of intellectual property, and then they work with the Very Big Company to “package it.” A package is exactly what it sounds like. It’s not just the idea, it’s also the team.

Underlying IP + Movie Idea + Movie Star + Important Director = Package

Here’s what’s great about this approach for the Very Big Company. This doesn’t cost them any money. Instead, they can go to a different big company and ask them for money to pay for the development of the movie. And if that second company says no, then… maybe they can ask someone else, or maybe they can just say, “alright, never mind. No problem for us, since this didn’t cost us anything.”

Here’s what’s terrible about this approach for you, the artist. This doesn’t cost them any money! Meaning, until a second very big company signs off on it, you are doing all of this work FOR FREE. That’s right! “We don’t finance development” means, “we don’t pay people to work for us.” We ask them to do quite a bit of work first, and then we will hopefully try to broker a relationship with another company who would be willing to pay them.

Hm…

This whole system is great for the Very Big Companies! Very Big Company 1 spends no money on any of the artists, and Very Big Company 2 only has to spend money on the artists after they’ve come up with an idea and put in the legwork of putting together an entire team for a movie. This kind of development can take months of meetings and creative work (for the writer) just to get to a solid piece of potential material that Very Big Company 1’s very big bosses are willing to approve. Then there is a second phase of packaging that can take months (or years!) before you have what could be considered a “compelling” package and can take that to Very Big Company 2. During this time… because the Very Big Companies refuse to pay for development, the artists are working for free, and the employees of the Very Big Companies are not working for free. They are in fact cashing bi-weekly paychecks. Funny how that works.

Of course these companies have decided this is how they’d like their development process to work. It minimizes the financial risk, and maximizes potential upside. In fact, during a time period where it feels harder than ever to get someone to invest in a film, it’s the perfect way to do things. It puts all of the risk onto the freelance artists, and none of the risk on the corporate balance sheet. It’s the uber-fication of Hollywood. Uber doesn’t provide anything besides the platform between two parties who’d like to make a transaction. Which is exactly what a lot of these so called “production companies” are doing at this point. They are creating an entire new category of middlemen in the business, and in the process extracting free labor on one side, and free money on the other.

It’s very good business sense! But, as we have seen with uber, it is very bad for the workers. This extractive kind of business model creates a precarious labor force, forced to take on the financial risk of projects and material they don’t own or in any way control. All the while the Very Big Companies are able to continue to sell their products, earn their billions, and “not pay for development.”

So what’s the solution here?

Well, if you’re an artist meeting executives at a company, absolutely you must ask them how and whether they fund development. The first thing you should know when meeting a prospective employer is whether they intend to pay you! If they don’t fund development, you may want to remind them why that is incredibly onerous for you, the laborer, who is being asked to do a lot of work for free. I understand that Hollywood is a cutthroat workforce in which scarcity is used to constantly get the artists to negotiate against themselves, but… these Very Big Companies could pay for development. They do pay their employees. They have chosen to not pay you.

And that’s their prerogative. But it’s important to remember when you’re choosing whether or not to work with someone: Do they value my contribution enough to pay me for it? Do they believe that I have any value? Or will they only believe in that value if someone else first believes in it? And if there’s actually someone else I need to convince, shouldn’t I instead just go meet with them? Directly? Rather than with this middleman?

I get that free work abounds in the arts! I do it all the time. And I understand that independent film works differently. I’m writing an independent film for me to direct, currently! And independent producers often have a wealth of experience in actually getting movies made, and often themselves are working precariously and for free until their movies get set up.

But what I cannot endorse is doing free work for billion dollar companies. No no no. Sorry. This is a broken business model. And until it changes, I’m not sure it’s worth meeting with places like this, because… I can’t really envision a world where we’ll work together. And I definitely can’t imagine a world where us working together while they are being paid and I’m not feels fair.

Thoughts on free work? Thoughts on how to reverse this trend? Any free development horror stories? I’m all ears!