Comments on: How Hollywood Really Works: The Final Chapter

By: Lawrence Meyers

Lawrence Meyers — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:08:17 +0000

Well, Josh, nice to see you here. I never said the market would correct itself. I offered this up as a plan that would mutually benefit studios and Labor.

And I may very well write a book on the subject. In fact, that’s a great idea.

Thanks!

By: josh

josh — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:08:20 +0000

So, let’s see, you propose they take the money from the execs and give it to you. No sheet.

And you are saying that this is what’s going to happen because the market is going to correct itself? You are so delusional.

Or, maybe you’re just inventing this phenomena and write essays as a platform for when you’ll shop for your book.

And I’m sure those publishers won’t know any better and believe you.

So. You won’t be a Hollywood writer but at least you’ll have a book.

Those who can’t, teach.

By: Lawrence Meyers

Lawrence Meyers — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:02:16 +0000

I am flattered and appreciative that you request an assessment of the world of academia. I truly wish I had the slightest clue about it to offer an opinion.

By: remotedevice

remotedevice — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:04:27 +0000

@JackSprat: I think what Lawrence’s point is is that it’s precisely the profit motive that is ultimately going to bring about these changes. As he notes in his response, executives in Hollywood are basically a class “middle-management” (high-salaried) workers. This class emerged as a part of the exploding management/oversight culture of the 70s, 80s and 90s, and even spiked in size in response to what the MPAA etc perceive as threats to the current/old business model. But at the end of the day, it’s ownership that’s going to be making the decisions, and restructuring along the lines Lawrence specifies is quite frankly inevitable.

@mez breeze: I agree, would love to see such an assessment from Lawrence. The whole tenure process, the ridiculous differentiation between acceptable and unacceptable publication formats/venues, the rejection of entire swaths of online knowledge-generating activity, etc etc are ultimately gross inefficiencies and impediments to scholarship that just as surely require revolutionary change.

By: Lawrence Meyers

Lawrence Meyers — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:59:56 +0000

JackSprat:
Thanks for your thoughts. What you miss is that the executives do not hold the power in terms of making change or resisting it. They are employees and are subject to the whims of the corporate heads.

Yes, decisions will be made in a manner in which the decision-makers benefit. My point is that there are benefits to be realized by these people.

By: mez breeze

mez breeze — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:20:43 +0000

+ now a real challenge: can u offer a similar assessment of Academia? if you can offer a concrete method on how to remove the internalised longitudinal bloat from that institution, u get 10 [gold-star] points.

By: JackSprat

JackSprat — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:35:28 +0000

Very interesting article. While I agree with it in principle, unfortunately, it is naive to think that such changes would ever be implemented.

IMO, the mistake the author makes is a typical one made by economic theorists: The assumption that something will be done in order to benefit “studios,” “agencies,” “companies,” etc. In reality, there is no such thing as a “company” or a “corporation” or even a “studio.” These are intangible constructs that exist only in our minds. Decisions are made by individual people, everyday people, who want to benefit themselves personally and no one else. No system will ever be changed if the people running the system (the executives) will not directly benefit. As the article mentions, the one group that would not benefit from this new proposed system are the executives; therefore, these changes will never occur.

With some exceptions, the majority of people are not concerned with producing “good” content or doing “good” work, nor are they concerned with making money for their “corporation” or “studio” or “agency” (since in reality these things are imaginary). They are instead preoccupied with making money for themselves and ONLY themselves.