December 25, 2007

without fear, hollywood has no viable business model: the t.v. writer’s strike

zzzmkghilkj2888.jpg
I’ve been watching the Ame­ri­can TV writer’s strike with great inte­rest.
Back in 1999 – 2000 I spent 5 months in Holly­wood, hel­ping a friend out with his “New Media” dot­com [The lat­ter fai­led mise­rably, of course, but that’s another story]. Having seen the Media lands­cape evolve so dra­ma­ti­cally since then, I have some thoughts on the dis­pute:
1. What struck me most about living in LA was how nobody tal­ked about “Art”. They wan­ted to talk about “The Industry”. Some­body you knew get­ting a job on the set of Spi­der­man 3 or Stuart Little 2 was con­si­de­red hot stuff… even if they were not films you or anyone else you knew would ever want to see your­sel­ves [i.e. even if the movie was kinda lame]. And the equi­va­lent exis­ted in the TV world.
It didn’t take me very long to figure out: Holly­wood is a fac­tory town. In terms of social hie­rarchies, it was no dif­fe­rent that Detroit, only ins­tead of Ford and GM, we had Uni­ver­sal and Dis­ney. And the guys I knew in it, for all their flashy cars and expen­sive gym mem­berships, were nothing more than glo­ri­fied fac­tory wor­kers. Wor­king on an assembly line. Ship­ping wid­gets [in the form of “movies” and “shows”] off to thea­ters and TV sta­tions around the country. And indeed, they had EXACTLY the same kind of indus­trial alie­na­tion from their craft as the fac­tory wor­kers that Marx and Engels wrote about, over a cen­tury before.
2. For all the dif­fe­rent kinds of “crea­tive” peo­ple in the sys­tem, Holly­wood has the most rigid class sys­tem I have ever encoun­te­red. With “The Pla­yers” at the top [Spiel­berg, Lucas, Brad Pitt, Angela Jolie etc], the grunts and the unem­plo­yed “Talent” at the bot­tom, and in bet­ween the middle guys: Wri­ters, law­yers, agents, techies, all enga­ged in a mas­sive cat-fight to get on top, or at least, get on top of their current peer group. It was a very well-mapped-out pyra­mid. Which is what made mee­ting peo­ple such a foggy expe­rience. They knew that if you could figure out where on the pyra­mid you lay [not a hard thing to do in under thirty seconds], they’d feel expo­sed and vul­ne­ra­ble. And the wri­ters I knew, for all the yak­kin’ I heard about “the inte­grity” of their craft, were as every bit as com­pli­cit in pre­ser­ving the pyra­mid scheme as anyone else I met.
In a recent Twit­ter con­ver­sa­tion, Loren Feld­man said to me: “I did 10 years in Holly­wood, it’s a sys­tem based on fear, always has been.” I agree. And I think it will always be thus. Without fear, Holly­wood has no via­ble busi­ness model. Without a large group of young, hungry peo­ple willing to take the pyramid/privilege model seriously, Holly­wood has no busi­ness model. Pri­vi­lege and fear are never far from one another.
3. In the last 20 years, we’ve seen an evo­lu­tion of non-print Media away from “Thea­tri­cal” [Both cinema and TV are forms of thea­ter], towards inte­rac­tive. And the main con­se­quen­ces of that, besi­des media beco­ming a two-way con­ver­sa­tion ins­tead of a one-way con­ver­sa­tion, has made the barriers to entry into crea­ting “Media” a lot lower. And the peo­ple who are fee­ling the pain are the ones who spent the last decade or so trying to figure the pyra­mid scheme in a time when the world was a dif­fe­rent place.
4. In the end, this strike is not about DVD and digi­tal royal­ties. Ulti­ma­tely, this strike is about the mas­sive and trau­ma­tic ero­sion of pri­vi­le­ges affor­ded the middle-ranking fac­tory wor­kers. But of course, there’s not a damn thing they or their bos­ses can do to bring those pri­vi­le­ges back. The lands­cape of media is moving away from large stu­dios, to college dorms, down­town lofts, and subur­ban gara­ges. Like Madi­son Ave­nue, Holly­wood won’t disap­pear. But also like Madi­son Ave­nue, it’ll never com­mand the cul­tu­ral van­guard like it once did.
My conc­lu­sion? The ice cap is mel­ting, and all we’re seeing here is the pen­guins deci­ding to hold a pic­ket line. In news terms, it makes for good thea­ter. But like Holly­wood, that’s all it is.

[UPDATE:] Thanks to Andrew Denny for lea­ving the follo­wing com­ment:

Direc­tor Mike Fig­gis made some simi­lar points (and pre­dic­ted a collapse of the exis­ting Holly­wood model) in a won­der­ful talk on BBC Radio 3 last month entit­led: “Is there too much cul­ture?” [55 minu­tes long]

Just lis­te­ned to it. Awe­some stuff.

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

17 Responses to “without fear, hollywood has no viable business model: the t.v. writer’s strike”

  1. djcoffman says:

    I tell this story openly now, but I work around “new media” and inte­llec­tual pro­perty a lot with folks in Holly­wood.
    My funny story is, when I was just star­ting the publishing com­pany I’m with, my assig­ned edi­tor for my comic book series asked me how I pre­fer to go about wri­ting my comic book, and I said “Well I usually pre­fer the Will Eis­ner method” and she said “Who’s Will Eis­ner?”— I smac­ked my head on the phone with her and thought “I’m in trou­ble!” — it all wor­ked out though, but it was a very eye-opening expe­rience, that many peo­ple out in the Holly­wood “industry” don’t really know the other indus­tries they’re pla­ying in or taking from.
    I’ve had some won­der­ful con­ver­sa­tions about that par­ti­cu­lar sub­ject– and I’ve been told a few times, that it’s actually not neces­sary for ever­yone in the com­pany to know all about comics, they spe­cia­lize in other things, etc. That makes sense– I’d never tell a IT guy how to do his job, and I’m sure there’s terms or peo­ple I’ve never heard of. I think if I were run­ning a com­pany though that deals with comics to movies, I’d make ever­yone, even interns and law­yers, read Will Eisner’s “Comics and Sequen­tial Art” and Scott McCloud’s “Unders­tan­ding Comics”.
    I’m super happy things wor­ked out in my situa­tion though, the edi­tors who didn’t KNOW the basic stuff, the meat, of “comics” are long gone for more than a year now. And I breathe an occa­sio­nal sigh of relief.

  2. ceedee says:

    “In the end, this strike is not about DVD and digi­tal royal­ties.“
    Got to disa­gree to some extent, Hugh.
    Sure, the studio’s are stood on the metapho­ri­cal bur­ning deck but not the wri­ters — their skills will con­ti­nue to be requi­red even once all the broad­cast tv chan­nels have died.
    You don’t think they’re jus­ti­fied in for­cing their claim for a rea­so­na­ble slice of the non-Theatre pro­duc­tion?
    @ djcoff­man: “I’d make ever­yone … read Will Eisner’s “Comics and Sequen­tial Art” and Scott McCloud’s “Unders­tan­ding Comics”.“
    Do you know the name and tech­ni­ques of the guy who inven­ted the com­pu­ter you work on?
    You mean you haven’t even bothe­red to read “Use­less His­tory of the Desk­top”?
    Oh my!
    :-O

  3. hugh macleod says:

    cee­cee, I think anyone is entit­led to ask for a big­ger slice of the pie, if they see fit.
    On paper, the writer’s cause seems fair enough. But like I infe­rred, the cause is just a symp­tom of a much big­ger, much more per­ma­nent pro­blem i.e. the sys­tem they’ve willingly bought into is no lon­ger deli­ve­ring the goods, in the quan­ti­ties they’ve grown used to.
    The fact is, for all the dis­rup­tion within the Industry this dis­pute is cau­sing, I have not yet heard one per­son I know per­so­nally com­plain about the drop in qua­lity of the “con­tent” they’re con­su­ming. Which is a lot grea­ter mea­sure of rea­lity than the argu­ments of their lawyers.

  4. Lucy says:

    Thanks for the Information

  5. The world is a cons­tantly chan­ging place, even for the elite in Holly­wood. The facts must be faced. Right now, the mar­ket is being dri­ven by the inter­net and more per­so­nal means of enter­tain­ment or infor­ma­tion. The big guys see the winds of change. In a mad dash, they scram­ble to see how they can main­tain their con­trol, buy into or mani­pu­late new aspects of busi­ness for their own bene­fit. You hear the same scutt­le­butt among some of the recor­ding artists that are sig­ned with the labels. Some want to com­pete more effec­ti­vely with indie radio on the inter­net even though they enjoy the fruits of the old music dis­tri­bu­tion sys­tem. They are resent­ful that they are so con­tro­lled by the con­tract they have with their recor­ding label. This was a deci­sion they made. Some may feel that inde­pen­dent artists have no right to anything for any num­ber of rea­sons. Yet, the indie music industry is not to be envied either except for the fact that it is brea­king new ground. The inter­net and world of com­mu­ni­ca­tion is in a state of flux. Those that are wise will look for oppor­tu­ni­ties, but more than anything, the wise will per­se­vere even when things are tough. It all about the money and right now, money is the cha­llenge in many areas. Com­plai­ning and quit­ting accom­plish nothing but sour grapes.

  6. When the winds of change are blo­wing some build shel­ters. Others build wind­mills.
    What’s the last wind­mill a union ever built?

  7. Phil Gomes says:

    I spent 18 months in LA. Liked some of it. Howe­ver, after I met the love of my life in Chi­cago and rea­li­zed that my favo­rite acti­vity in LA was watching movies at the Holly­wood Fore­ver Ceme­tary, I figu­red it was time for a move.
    At one point, the sha­llow­ness became so per­va­sive and tho­rough that it actually appea­red to approach “depth”.
    I was at one party in Venice Beach thrown by a num­ber of industry folks who follo­wed each other from pro­ject to pro­ject over a decade.
    At one point, they star­ted tal­king about the “blue tic­ket” who unsuc­cess­fully tried to ask one of them out on a date, or the “total pink-ticket” who was obser­ved sit­ting at the Star­bucks that mor­ning.
    I nai­vely asked “What’s all this pink/blue-ticket talk?“
    They half-patiently explai­ned that, when they wor­ked for a major TV talk show, the peo­ple who lined up to be part of the stu­dio audience were han­ded pink and blue tic­kets as they filed in. Pink-ticketed folks ten­ded to be more con­ven­tio­nally attrac­tive than their blue-ticket coun­ter­parts. They were sea­ted accor­dingly, with the pink-ticket reci­pients being pla­ced within the sweep of the came­ras.
    Nothing new, of course. A friend of mine even obser­ved the same tic­ke­ting beha­vior at an Obama rally in Oakland, Calif.
    Neverthe­less, the expe­rience was somewhat emble­ma­tic of my time in El Lay…

  8. vinny warren says:

    ice-melting ana­logy is per­fect for both holly­wood and mad. ave.
    inc­re­di­ble when you think how they/we used to have it (the atten­tion of the mas­ses) so sewn up and under con­trol. and still we bitched. adver­ti­sing deri­ved its outsi­zed cul­tu­ral clout by finan­cing big TV. no more of that.
    i was recently at a com­mu­ter train sta­tion in chi­cago with ma fancy new iphone. a prompt asked me if i wan­ted to join a free Jet­blue wifi ser­vice. of course i did! thank you jet­blue. best brand ad thingy i’ve encoun­te­red in ages.
    only pro­blem: it’s not gla­mou­rous. nobody got a week in shut­ters crea­ting that little gem. geeks inhe­rit earth etc… ;-)

  9. I sup­port the wri­ters for two rea­sons:
    1. They write , and without them we will not have any way to have qua­lity tv or movies avai­la­ble to us.
    2. They had a con­tract, that needs to be upheld period. If you write a book, would you not want fair com­pen­sa­tion for your work? 4 cents may seem silly to some, but its just the fair thing to do.
    Now i hope the strike ends soon, as I cant stand rea­lity tv, and there are so many who are out of work now.

  10. Andrew Denny says:

    Direc­tor Mike Fig­gis made some simi­lar points (and pre­dic­ted a collapse of the exis­ting Holly­wood model) in a won­der­ful talk on BBC Radio 3 last month entit­led: “Is there too much cul­ture?“
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/freethinking/2007/festival-events/event14/
    Well worth a lis­ten. It’s also avai­la­ble as a pod­cast (I’ve got a copy of the MP3) but I can’t find a link to that just now.

  11. thom singer says:

    The same thing is hap­pe­ning in the publishing busi­ness that is hap­pe­ning in Holly­wood. The barriers to entry and the buying pat­terns of the con­su­mer are morphing. Print-on-demand publishers and other types of self-publishing/small press are making it easy for anyone to write a book. The inter­net and Amazon.com has made dis­tri­bu­tion easy.
    The “industry” is han­ging onto their tra­di­tio­nal ways and proc­lai­ming their ways are BEST…meanwhile authors are acti­vely loo­king at new ways to bring their pro­ducts to mar­ket. And the buyers do not care who published the book any more, they just want good con­tent.
    Hollywood’s sys­tem makes those at the top very rich, so they cling to it (same in publishing and music indus­tries). But change is coming and coming fast.
    You are correct that Holly­wood as we know it does not “go away”, but it beco­mes a car­toon of itself. There are many other exam­ples of this in other indus­tries as new tech­no­lo­gies keep catching on and new habits of the con­su­mers become mains­tream.
    Per­so­nally, I love all the new oppor­tu­ni­ties that new media tech­no­lo­gies bring.

  12. Tom Reeves says:

    Great post. I quo­ted it for a post on my blog (pwnership.com). My thought on the wri­ters strike:
    The wri­ters’ strike is about the rea­llo­ca­tion of reve­nues away from dis­tri­bu­tors towards con­tent crea­tors. It’s about esta­blishing those eco­no­mics in the digi­tal mar­ket. It’s a fight over new terri­tory. It’s the 49ers all over again. There be gold in the hills. There be dra­gons too.

  13. Anonymous says:

    The industry is chan­ging and insi­ders are aware of it.
    I have seen the recog­ni­tion slowly see­ping through and the strike has finally made EVERYONE see it. For con­text, I have appea­red on over 100 dif­fe­rent pro­duc­tions in the past year as a non spea­king actor. FYI my type is a blend of what used to be called “silent bit part” and the old “extra” in the days of the screen extras guild but is now is a SAG union actor who does almost everything inc­lu­ding deli­ve­ring the star’s baby but has no spea­king lines and no cre­dits (ah the won­der of arbi­trary union rules…)
    The impor­tant thing for this dis­cus­sion though is that I and guys like me work on a dif­fe­rent tv show or movie every day and then we do the shows again in a dif­fe­rent part and that has given me some uni­que insights on the industry and the impor­tance of audience num­bers.
    One of the rea­sons I wan­ted to do this career choice now at least for a while, was I felt strongly that I wan­ted to be invol­ved with pro­duc­tions while they were still big and I saw the change coming 3 years ago. Maybe it was because I had been in some large dot com ven­tu­res and had launched seve­ral one to many maga­zi­nes and saw the chan­ges inter­net one to one con­nec­tions were brin­ging to all media.
    Figure it this way– with the ori­gi­nal Tesla Mar­coni “one to many” broad­cast tower busi­ness model, mass audien­ces create large bud­gets and inte­res­ting sets as well as exor­bi­tant wealth to pay for spec­ta­cu­lar sets and fan­ta­sies.
    As we shift to a many to less than many vie­wers busi­ness model of you­tube, more pro­duc­tions will pro­li­fe­rate but wor­king on them will not be an extraor­di­nary expe­rience — just a lot of home sets and rig­ged greensc­reens with ave­rage audien­ces less than a small home­town.
    I know I am seeing and living the last of a disap­pea­ring industry expe­rience. At least as a COMMON industry expe­rience. Every day on a Clint East­wood movie like “Chan­gling” on the big bac­klots at uni­ver­sal where I got to shoot machine guns in the surroun­dings of the 1920’s or the set of the West Wing where wal­ked Mar­tin Sheen for his last time out of a full size replica of the inside of the White House as a pre­si­den­tial sec­ret ser­vice agent was that much more of a joy because I knew I was watching the gol­den oldies from the inside before ever­yone rea­li­zed they WERE beco­ming the oldies. The sets were and are ama­zing and so was and is the energy and I soak it up. Many others around me didn’t rea­lize it will likely be soon lost.
    I remem­ber we already had the industry down­size once when I was wor­king pro­duc­tion on FBI:The Untold Sto­ries.
    For com­pa­ri­sion when there were only three net­works and no cable pro­duc­tions, everything was big­ger. As Susan Som­mers of three’s com­pany said “I was a star when it really meant something — 40 million peo­ple watched you in one night.” Cable dilu­ted that audience so there were fewer Dynas­ties and more Rosan­nes because sit coms were chea­per. Fbi:The untold sto­ries was show bud­ge­ted to exist in that dec­li­ning net­work share time — we spent 10 minu­tes inter­vie­wing an agent on a back­drop because it cut that much from pro­duc­tion cost of air­time ree­nact­ment.
    Now a cable show might be “suc­cess­ful” like Cali­for­ni­ca­tion with about 1 million vie­wers. That was me in my under­wear on the coast dri­ving porsche ope­ning the pilot cre­dits by the way — watch for the edit after David’s face.. I gua­ran­tee you having a heli­cop­ter swoo­ping over you to film to the ama­ze­ment of other dri­vers as you drive a porsche down the cali­for­nia coast will likely not be fun­da­ble by you­tube pro­duc­tions. (I’ll never for­get that fee­ling of the heavy whop­ping sound at the chop­per flew in from the sea over my car and then rose like a roc­ket for those dri­ving shots. That pilot was the chop­per pilot who flew the chop­per under the bridge for ter­mi­na­tor.)
    One day on a set I inad­ver­tently figu­red out what the current “one to many” industry imapct was. To cheer up a com­pa­dre who felt down about not having any lines and won­de­ring about the impact of his life as a silent actor without cre­dits, I once added up how many peo­ple had pro­bably seen each of us by taking the rough ratings audien­ces of each tv or movie his and my face had clearly appea­red in howe­ver briefly and added them up. I got to something like 200 million uni­que indi­vi­dual vie­wers in the USA alone for each of us after we had each done about 50 pro­duc­tions. That’s more peo­ple than saw or even knew Cea­sar or most ancient his­to­ri­cal figu­res when they were alive. That kinda chee­red him up :-) . Think about that for a minute… CEASAR’S and CLEOPATRA’S and MOSES’ audience was a small town thea­ter pro­duc­tion by com­pa­ri­sion to the one to many broad­cast eco­no­mic model we are losing. Wow.
    That huge audience just won’t be com­monly pos­si­ble in the you tube world with rare excep­tion. Most of my cal­cu­la­ted vie­wers would have been from doing dif­fe­rent shows of course with some vie­wer dupli­ca­tion, but not as much dupli­ca­tion as being on the same show every week and that’s kinda the impor­tant point. Already today to get those audience num­bers I had to do it by appea­ring over and over in MANY shows and movies. You can’t even get that audience by being the LEAD STAR on a sin­gle cable show these days. The industry has already so decen­tra­li­zed. In fact a guy like me has been seen by more peo­ple than most newly min­ted tv stars BECAUSE of the frac­tu­ring of audien­ces. More peo­ple have pro­bably seen me and will faintly recog­nize me than the star of say the wizards of waverly place on the dis­ney net­work (yes I wor­ked that too) or even the third law­yer on bos­ton legal or some net­work shows because the audien­ces are so split that some peo­ple will NEVER see some “big” shows today. More peo­ple recog­nize Bill Shat­ner now from the star trek days than the frac­tu­red audience of bos­ton legal I’ll bet. (He dri­ves big har­ley some­ti­mes by the way. Occa­sio­nally races some crew mem­bers to the stu­dio. Funny even in per­son with Spa­der and obviously loving life because he doesn’t take it too seriously)
    Its not like the days of I Love Lucy where EVERYONE had seen Luci­lle Ball even if they didn’t watch the show because there were only three net­works to talk about.
    And I gua­ran­tee you more peo­ple will recog­nize me or someone else like me (although they won’t be sure I am not an old class­mate…) than will know 99.9% of stars of future you­tube videos just because of the num­bers of the one to many model. That one to many model is essen­tial to the industry and our cul­ture as we know it and it is disap­pea­ring.
    It’s odd to think about what we are losing though.
    Pro­mo­tion is one thing we will lose and that comes for one to many sca­les of money. For exam­ple one thing my expe­rience pro­ves is that deep recog­ni­tion or what’s called Q comes not from being on screen a lot which I have done, but from the pro­mo­tion jun­kets that stu­dios ensure — going on the tonight show, the end­less inter­views for 5min each with end­less cele­brity enter­tain­ment industry shows etc etc. which I haven’t done. I haven’t done it because there is no money in it for indi­vi­dual one to many shows to pro­mote me. I’m a “many shows to one” “one to many” audience hybrid so I don’t get pro­mo­ted which is nice.
    Those pro­mo­tion efforts are arran­ged by the big stu­dios with their one to many money mar­ke­ting bud­gets for their one to many stars and they have to endure the crap while I get to be on more shows than they do.
    My fun career is a quiet one and I like it, but my sec­retly famous expe­rience and the know­ledge there are a few dozen out there just like me who I work with on dif­fe­rent sets every day has taught me that without those “one to many” mar­ke­ting money depart­ments there won’t be as many true long term stars any­more from the world of enter­tain­ment. If there will be I would already be a star which thank­fully I am not. There will mostly be flashes in the pan because they won’t be pro­mo­ted and they won’t even have the vie­wers I have had.
    Pro­mo­tion not vie­wers makes fame and then fame makes fame, and fame is a one to many con­cept that dies in a no mar­ke­ting bud­get many to one you­tube broad­cast world.
    Its inte­res­ting and impor­tant because lack of enter­tain­ment stars will change cul­ture and youth in every country that gets tv. Like it or not, much of how we all inden­tify our­sel­ves (espe­cially when young) comes from alig­ning our­sel­ves with the roles favo­rite stars play on the boob tube. Its where most people’s men­tal image of them­sel­ves is cons­truc­ted — a little mar­tin sheen as president(super nice in per­son) or mylie Cyrus on Han­nah Mon­tata (iwas the chauf­fer once on that show and she’s a down home com­mon sense Nash­vi­lle girl) or Eva Lon­go­ria (also super nice and truly fun) today or daniel boone (Fess Par­ker –good wine now!) in my youth, or whoe­ver peo­ple or kids might like and sub­cons­ciously emu­late without kno­wing it.
    Without the one to many money for enter­tain­ment cele­bri­ties we will only be left with big busi­ness exe­cu­ti­ves and poli­ti­cians (nearly the same now) who will have recog­ni­za­bi­lity sta­ying power because they still have the one to many busi­ness model sup­por­ting their publi­city efforts and that may be scary. Ima­gine donald trump with less per­so­na­lity and even more pro­fit motive for every appea­rance and you’ll know the visually avai­la­ble role model cele­brity of the future.
    One thing could swing it all back though and that is if the tele­coms are suc­cess­ful in char­ging goo­gles to carry their data from their sites to the con­su­mer through the wires they have mono­po­li­zed– the so called net nue­tra­lity chan­ges. If so it will stay one to many enter­tain­ment as the you­tu­bes busi­ness model will die and con­trol of what peo­ple see will go back to those who con­trol the one to many broad­cast pipe­li­nes and methods. Peo­ple unde­res­ti­mate that pos­si­bi­lity of rever­sion as legis­la­tion is moving that way now in the court deci­sions. It is pos­si­ble the open inter­net will die ins­tead of the one to many broad­cast model. This last ten years of the open inter­net might be the abe­ra­tion and not con­so­li­da­ted con­trol of broad­cas­ting.
    But if it doesn’t hap­pen (and I hope it doesn’t even though it will limit my future ear­ning power through) what i see these days — the big sets and big per­so­na­li­ties will become dwindle feed — A slow mulch of disen­tre­gra­tion as we become con­su­med with well writ­ten and acted but no flashy extras story lines that are seen by a few thou­sand peo­ple on you­tube.
    Even the you tube brea­kout videos like later “lonely girls” will leave us won­de­ring “yeah her face is fami­liar but who is she?” just like lonely girl did.
    That’s why I urge ever­yone to hope the wri­ters get a new con­tract along the old lines because then it will all get exten­ded from the stu­dios for another 5 years or so.
    Without the wri­ters the net­works will acce­le­rate the wri­ters and actors shift to self pro­du­ced many to less than many you­tube pro­grams.
    But wha­te­ver hap­pens enjoy the big bud­get stuff we have now because it is an abe­ra­tion cau­sed by the limits of early tech­no­logy which neces­si­ta­ted one to many broad­casts that tem­po­ra­rily gave rise to a pyra­mid of money and all the glit­ter and per­so­nal and pro­duc­tion extra­va­gance that brought with it. It was an abe­rat­tion in time that tesla and mar­coni star­ted and is ending with marc andre­sen and the world wide web brow­ser and ser­ver.
    Thank good­ness Tesla cared about broad­cas­ting and not one to one mail or we might have had you­tube first.
    That’s my take on all this from the inside. And hey now I have even got­ten to expe­rience wal­king a few pic­ket lines — something that I thought was dead and buried from the seven­ties but unfor­tu­na­tely is nee­ded in almost every industry now. But I’ll trea­sure those expe­rin­ces too because holly­wood has some of the last strong unions and maybe those will die along with the one to many broad­cast model. So I enjoy every pic­ket line.
    We only have a few deca­des on this pla­net each and I would soak up as much of it all as you can because some of it is chan­ging and you will miss it when it is gone even though you love to cri­ti­cize it now.
    And if you see a guy you think you know on the street one day– well its pro­bably me and it’s been fun even if it doesn’t last another one to many con­tract period.
    You can reach me over at http://www.vivzizi.com if you want.
    George F. Watson
    aka “Fitch” but never cre­di­ted and I’m ok with that
    “My phone with which this has been pos­ted has a two inch key­board so I don’t care to correct mispellling.”

  14. Lord says:

    They don’t have auto­ma­tion to worry about though. Inte­rac­tive and rea­lity based pro­gram­ming may inc­rease, but that will not les­sen the demand for the thea­tri­cal. Talent and money to pay for it will always cons­ti­tute a barrier more sig­ni­fi­cant than tech­no­logy. While the industry will con­ti­nue to change, the demand for wri­ters will expand, rather than shrink. That puts them in a fun­da­men­tally dif­fe­rent situa­tion from fac­tory workers.

  15. In the ‘50s my dad was a famous show busi­ness law­yer in NYC. He wan­ted to move to Holly­wood, but my mother wouldn’t go. She said it was no place to raise a family. She the­reby res­cued us from a life of ina­nity.
    Later, both my daugh­ters crui­sed through L.A. on their way to their “real“lives, each of them fee­ling ugly, alie­na­ted and impo­ve­rished during their entire sojourns, because one was a law stu­dent and the other wasn’t in the “industry.“
    Last night a musi­cian rela­tive of ours said the same thing: he’s “done” with L.A. even though he pro­bably should be there for his music. He couldn’t stand the lifestyle.
    Can’t really com­pare Holly­wood to Detroit; Detroit had some sense of morals and ethics.

  16. Isao says:

    Thank you for ope­ning my eyes. I have been won­de­ring “What’s all this fuss about?” from the begin­ning. It was like watching a modern-art play while the audience around me were applau­ding it with cheers. Start­ling, I am sta­ring at the audience, not the play itself.
    “The ice cap is mel­ting, and all we’re seeing here is the pen­guins deci­ding to hold a pic­ket line.” sum­ma­ri­zes the whole situa­tion per­fectly. We are obser­ving the begin­ning of the end of an era, and THAT makes the big­gest enter­tain­ment Holly­wood has recently produced.

  17. Jack Yan says:

    Any industry that has lost its soul and works to uphold merely the ins­ti­tu­tions can be said to have a fac­tory men­ta­lity. Holly­wood no lon­ger dab­bles in new ideas — it is a fac­tory. Detroit is the same as it recyc­les old con­cepts. New York fashion, to some extent, is the same.