--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > > Stu wrote: > > > > > > > > I have been working on "The Office". Just finished the > > > > season. Been taking it easy for the last month or so, > > > > have a few irons in the fire. All in all I am living > > > > the dream in the 'wood. > > > > > > Good to hear that. I've been hearing about cutbacks in > > > productions due to the economy. Must be hitting Hollywood > > > hard. I'm hoping that leaner budgets may put more of an > > > emphasis on writing to carry a show. Lower budget projects > > > like "Burn Notice" are very entertaining. I also liked > > > the pilot for "Mental" which is lean more in a BBC way. > > > > I wish I could be so positive about the budget cuts. Generally > > it means they are less likely to hire writers to come up with > > fresh ideas, instead the suits look to remake old shows or hope > > star power will carry a series. They cut back on writing staffs. > > Stu, is there anything general you can say about > the percentages in a show's budget? Like how much > is spent on "star power," how much on writers, and > how much on actual production?
A film budget is broken into two parts. "Above the line" and "Below the line". The "Above the line" group are the producers, actors, director, and writers. The "Below the line" are the crew and production costs like camera rentals, stages, location fees, and so on. Generally in Hollywood the "Above the line" costs are slightly more than 50% of total. For the most part the writers get screwed and much more money will go to big a name actors because a high paid actor can bring a project more money and publicity. There are a few good books on this subject. Adventures in the Screen Trade: William Goldman <http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Screen-Trade-William-Goldman/dp/044639\ 1174> is a pretty good one. One of the reasons British remakes are the fashion these days is that they don't have to pay a writer development fees to come up with something new. Much easier to license a British show and a pay a writer a few weeks work to adapt it. > One of the reasons I ask is that I can only imagine > that on the loathsome US version of "life On Mars" > they spent their entire budget on Harvey Keitel and > had nothing left over to hire writers with, so they > made do with an infinite number of monkeys chained > to typewriters. :-) Yes. And also there are only so many talents like David Kelly and Joss Whedon around. Most of them would rather work on something original so they can have profit participation in the project. Also I often see talented showrunners who don't have the budget to pay for an A team writing staff and have to make do with new writers and limited schedules to develop scripts. When a good show is made these days its success is in spite of the best efforts of the media conglomerates to foil it. > > > The corporate world hates taking chances in the best of times. > > Now innovation and surprise are dead. > > As shown by the fate so far of "Kings." One of the > most interesting shows I've seen come from mainstream > television in years, and it's toast. Then again, no > one seems to have watched it, which shows the if the > audience prefers to eat shit, few are going to try to > serve them more nourishing meals. I tried watching Kings and lost interest quickly. Seemed very "Bush era" once we moved passed it. > > On the other hand, Dollhouse survived. That's encour- > aging. I liked it. I didn't like the premise of Dollhouse. The situation was sort of a high tech whore house. > > For the upcoming summer season I really don't know if > there is anything I look forward to except True Blood > and Californication. The HBO series Into The Storm > looks good, mainly because it's the great Brendan > Gleeson playing Churchill. > Watched "Into The Storm" last night and enjoyed it. It was a little dry, but a very interesting look at the War through British eyes. Saw "The Soloist" yesterday and really enjoyed it. I liked Joe Wrights other movies like Atonement and Pride and Prejudice, this film had some really nice musical moments that got abstract. The story of the reporter and the homeless guy had a lot of heart. It takes you into a world one rarely gets a glimpse at. Robert Downey and Jamie Fox were really good. I had been following Steve Lopez's colomns about Nathaniel Ayers when it was happening. I had the opportunity of meeting Steve Lopez at a fund raising event so I was quite familiar with the story.
