Producing

Most producers will check if:

- the project is viable in this market (is there an audience?)

- the script can attract talent

- it can be made for a budget

- it can be marketed

Phenomenal, outstanding writing, dialogue and story.

This is a very open question ! Very interested in reading producer's answers.

For me, the first and most important factor is that the material has to move me. There needs to be something about the story, the characters, or the concept that stays with me, something I can’t stop thinking about after I’ve read it. Of course, the quality of the writing and the originality of the idea are key, but I’m also very aware that no script is ever truly perfect.

People often use the word “undeniable,” and while that’s a great goal, I also believe a big part of a producer’s and development executive’s role is recognizing potential in material that isn’t yet undeniable and helping shape it into something that is. Development is a process. It’s about collaborating, strengthening the storytelling, and positioning the project in the best possible way for the market.

From there, I always look at strategy and viability. I ask myself if there is a clear path to success for this project, if there is room for it in the current marketplace, and if I can realistically see a financing / packaging strategy coming together if it’s a film, or a pathway to getting it set up with a television buyer if it’s a series.

I stay very aware of market trends and buyer mandates, but I don’t rely on them exclusively. Sometimes the projects that truly break through are the ones that go against what’s trending or what buyers say they want in the moment. A great example is period pieces. We often hear that the market doesn’t want them, yet truly special ones continue to get made and succeed. When a piece of material is exceptional and emotionally resonant and reflects our society today, it can cut through the noise regardless of trends.

Ultimately, when a project deeply connects with me creatively and I can see both its potential and a clear strategy to bring it to life, that’s when I know it’s something I want to fund and produce.

Looking forward to the webinar today too Sandra :)

Please put your questions below for Michael, Sandra will be asking them to him during the live Q + A

Remember if you can't attend live you will receive the recording within 48 hours!

Likewise, Sydney S :))

Michael Bishop delivered an amazing masterclass. His experience is so deep and practical that he makes even the most complex parts of scheduling and budgeting feel clear and achievable. If anyone wants to learn directly from a top, highly experienced First AD, this is the webinar to get.

There are many issues in consideration for this year's industry negotiations, but the single-most important is the health of the plans which are effectively on life support. While the plans were first impacted by industry shutdowns during COVID, a much larger and lasting impact is from the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. Given that, the AMPTP/studios will hold a lot of chips at the bargaining table and could very well push for longer terms than the typical 3-year cycles that we've been seeing however unlikely they are to achieve that.

Issues aside, what hasn't been discussed much - and what could lead to some interesting twists - are the many new faces in the room and the changes among the studios. While there are recent articles with interviews of newly elected presidents Sean Astin at SAG-AFTRA and Christopher Nolan at the DGA, the AMPTP also has a new head: Greg Hessinger, who takes the place of long-time head Carol Lombardini (who has retired). Couple that with a change in the negotiation pattern (SAG-AFTRA is going first this cycle instead of the DGA who has gone first the last few cycles), and the yet-to-be-determined outcome of whether Warners will go to Paramount (a Skydance Corporation) or Netflix, it will all be intriguing to see how these things impact the dynamics of the negotiations and the progress each side can make.

Great breakdown of the interview. I'd push back a bit on the AI framing in the original article though.

Take the Disney-OpenAI deal. When people hear "Disney signed a billion-dollar AI deal," they assume AI-generated movies or TV shows. But that's not what this is. It's a consumer engagement tool for fans making short clips with animated characters. It explicitly excludes talent likenesses and voices. Sam Altman described the use case as "a Buzz Lightyear custom birthday card for their kid." That's not a production pipeline threat, but the vague framing lets people fill in their own fears.

Where AI actually shows up in production is more mundane: rotoscoping, background plates, de-aging, pre-viz. These are augmentation tools enabling mid-budget films that wouldn't otherwise get greenlit, not replacement tools.

Here's what doesn't get discussed: tens of thousands of LA production jobs lost over three years weren't primarily AI casualties. They were casualties of Peak TV ending, the 2023 strikes, and California ranking sixth globally for filming behind Toronto, the UK, Vancouver, and others. Many companies also over-hired during COVID, and the AI narrative provides an easy, fictional scape-goat for layoffs that were already in motion.

On AI replacing writers: I teach this in my AI courses. The difference between a beginner using AI versus an award-winning writer is night and day. Talented people using AI will win over just anyone using AI. For the record, I also teach NOT using AI to create story. It's better suited for brainstorming, proofreading, catching plot holes and so on anyways.

Nolan's right that licensing deals need clear pathways back to union members. But conflating fan engagement tools with production threats muddies the conversation producers actually need to have.

The real 2026 questions: How do we protect entry-level pipeline jobs? How do we communicate to producers and studios that every AI tool still needs a human pilot catching errors and creating fixes? What's the consent framework for digital likenesses? Those are answerable. "AI is coming for everything" isn't a strategy.

Nolan is asking the real question: consumer spending on entertainment has been steady, then why is none of that money trickling down to the workers? We're truly seeing the effect of entertainment companies run by Wall Street. Profit over relationships.

Agreed Geoffroy. The difference between how it used to be to the degree it's at now is staggering. : The Entertainment Industry Pay Gap: Key Numbers

The CEO-to-Worker Ratio

AMC Entertainment: 974-to-1 (CEO made ~$11.4 million; median employee made $11,659)

Bob Iger's 2024 compensation: $41.1 million

Disney's CEO-to-worker ratio: approximately 746-to-1

The Zaslav Number

David Zaslav earned $498 million over five years (2018-2022)—roughly 384 times what the average Hollywood writer made. This while WBD's stock dropped about 60% post-merger.

The Long-Term Trend (EPI data, verified)

YearCEO-to-Worker Ratio196521-to-12024281-to-1

CEO pay since 1978: up 1,094%

Worker pay since 1978: up 26%

The Layoffs

Media companies cut over 20,000 jobs in 2023 alone—the worst year since 2020—with further waves continuing into 2024.

A long term agreement sounds great in theory. Who doesn't love the thought of stability? However, with all of the contraction and change over the last few years, it may be ill-advised to enter into a binding agreement without certain assurances. Late last year, Disney and YouTubeTV were quarreling over this very issue and the resolution with a long term deal with opt outs. Perhaps, the DGA and other unions could look to a structure like that as a compromise.

You are welcome, Maurice Vaughan. Thank you. Also, this check list helps any screenwriter who wants to package their script for an Indie Production. Thank you for read.

You're welcome, Sandra Isabel Correia. I didn't think about that. Thanks for the idea.

Yes, when you are a looking for Indie production for your script, you also need to think about budget, audience, pitch and so on. I am happy for that, Maurice Vaughan

I think this checklist is useful, and I use similar criteria myself when applying for public funds here in Brazil, where clarity and structure are essential. But being “ready for funding” isn’t the same as being “ready as a film,” and it doesn’t determine whether a project will actually live beyond financing. Historically, producing a film has not been the main challenge — distribution is. And distribution operates largely through access, capital, and institutional logic, not through the quality or preparedness of a project. When funding readiness becomes the main filter, responsibility subtly shifts onto producers and projects, as if films fail because they weren’t developed enough. Meanwhile, many well-structured, funded films struggle to circulate, while others were made with far less preparation because of timing, urgency, or the power of the names involved. These criteria matter within funding systems, but they shouldn’t be treated as an objective measure of a film’s value or its ability to reach an audience.

Luciano Mello, thank you for bringing such depth and nuance to this conversation. You’re absolutely right; being “ready for funding” is not the same as being “ready as a film,” and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that a project will live or circulate in the world.

Your point about distribution is especially important. I’ve seen the same pattern across markets: films that are beautifully structured and fully financed still struggle to reach audiences, while others move forward because of timing, access, or the weight of certain names. The ecosystem is not meritocratic, and readiness alone doesn’t level the playing field.

My intention with this post wasn’t to suggest that these criteria define a film’s artistic value or its destiny, far from it. It was to support producers who are navigating the early stages, especially those who are entering funding systems that do demand clarity, structure, and alignment, even if those systems don’t guarantee circulation or success.

You’re right: these criteria are tools, not judgments. They help us prepare, but they don’t determine the life of the film. And they certainly don’t replace the larger conversations about access, distribution, and the institutional logic that shapes which stories travel and which don’t.

I really appreciate you expanding the frame here, it’s a reminder that producing is never just about building a project, but about navigating an entire ecosystem that often has its own rules.

Thank you for adding this layer to the discussion.

If it's a comedy, then 30 minutes will do.

Koryun Khachatryan An existing, broad and engaged fanbase is what makes something adaptable, in any genre including fantasy. Without that, by definition it has no current audience, and therefore has no viability at all other than speculatively. As for your other questions: 1. character-first versus lore-heavy - whatever you might see, no one on the planet connects to lore in a narrative. They only connect to character. So the amount of lore should only be a secondary concern to that, regardless of your genre. 2. Common red flags - (a) budget issues. Since most fantasy properties are production design nightmares, they are unlikely to be fundable or profitable (especially when they don't already have an established audience) and (b) lack of originality - most often they're a mashup of what has been done already, lore-wise and story-wise and design wise. 3. Balancing: originality with market expectations- expanding on fanbase, if there isn't one, then it had better be entirely original and with reasonable budget possibilities. If there is a fanbase, then the strength of that fanbase, where it is, etc. will inform whether it might be commercially viable. For example, a 2000 sale graphic novel with 3 human reviewers on Amazon is virtually nothing. While 50,000 copies sold of a video game shows a fair bit of strength and lets you target a community that is traditionally very engaged (gamers) in your market research. So for you, in your situation, I say get your novel to market and promote & sell the heck out of it. Only after you get positive and reliable traction should you consider adaptation.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai

Thank you for such a thoughtful and grounded response — I really appreciate the industry perspective.

I completely agree with you regarding character-first storytelling. That has been my core focus from the beginning, and the world is deliberately built around the characters rather than the other way around.

Your point about fanbase and proof of audience is well taken. My current priority is exactly that — bringing the novel to market, building readership, and validating demand before seriously pursuing adaptation.

I see this project as a long-term IP, not a speculative pitch, and your comment helps clarify the correct order of steps.

Thanks again for taking the time to share such an honest breakdown.

Happy to see A24 won the bidding war for The Invite with a $10m+ reported sale.

A24's been dominating Sundance for nearly 10 years; what an incredible success story.

A24 picked up my film First Reformed out of Venice, ahead of Sundance. An incredible success story indeed!

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t fully agree. The core story — Henri’s story — is primarily absurd and comedy with elements of drama. Scarlett’s story is a drama. Henri’s brother’s story is crime, drama, thriller. If I combine all of these genres into one series, I’m afraid the audience won’t clearly understand what kind of show they’re watching.

I’d prefer the main series to stay focused on absurdity and comedy, and then explore drama, crime, and thriller more deeply in spin-offs. That’s why I’m thinking about spin-offs — not because I don’t want rich character arcs, but because I believe mixing all these tones into one show could confuse the audience and weaken the core identity of the series.

Hard enough to sell one, my friend. But I wish you luck.

I know how hard it is to sell even one project, and I’m working toward that. I have a very clear vision of the main character. I haven’t written the full bible yet, but I’m developing it, and I clearly see the entire first season. I also see the long-term potential of the world, including possible spin-offs.

My goal is to show potential producers that this isn’t just a random idea — it’s a project I’m deeply developing, thinking through seriously, and building with a long-term vision in mind.

Wishing you all the best with it, Aleksandr Rozhnov

Thank you very much. We’ll do our best.

I have not worked on delivering a pitch but I am currently working on getting my voice ready. either in a written pitch or practice.

I love having a lookbook or pitch deck for my script. I like having the basic concepts there to reinforce what I’ve done. To make it easier for people visualise what I am.

Hi, Polina Kurapova. Hope you're doing great! Welcome to the community. Stage 32 has a blog that'll help you navigate the platform and connect with creatives and industry professionals all over the world. www.stage32.com/blog/how-to-successfully-navigate-the-stage-32-platform-...

Stage 32 had its monthly Community Open House yesterday. The recording will be available soon (www.stage32.com/education/products/stage-32s-january-2026-community-open...). It's free to watch. It'll also help you navigate Stage 32 and connect with creatives and industry pros.

I make a logline, short synopsis, full synopsis, pitch deck, treatment, and poster to pitch my feature script. I use Microsoft Word to make the logline, synopses, and treatment. I use Canva to make the pitch deck and poster.

Polina Kurapova I guess my question, is who is pitching and to whom? The norm in professional industry, still, in 2026 is a logline and script, if from a writer to well, anyone. If it's a producer to a funder, then it's a different story.

Very much shaped to who it's being pitched to. The shape is different from an investor to a prod co to a streamer or network.

Hope there's a big turnout for the Coverage Report—Euro Edition, Sandra Isabel Correia!

Thank you, Maurice Vaughan. Crossing my fingers for today's success:)

You're welcome, Sandra Isabel Correia.

Fantastic! Go Europe!

Thank you, Jack Binder. It was a great webcast. Next week, new edition:))