Producing

Antony Voronov The dichotomy, if there is one, is not between sci-fi and other genres, but between studio and indie films at all. Indie hasn't been permitted by the studios to get into theatrical for a couple decades now, with notable exceptions. The removal of the Paramount Decrees in 2020 made the cartel and it's anti-competitive practices legal again. So "clean screens", "block booking" and other practices which keep independent film out of theatrical releases are now essentially condoned by the DOJ. This is not going to get better, and your observations about event films etc. is both rationale and effect.

For a study on independent film profits (or lack thereof) see:

https://independentproducersguild.org/paper-cartel-or-collapse

Yeah, You are talking about the scale of players and monopoly. But it is another topic.

Great analysis Antony Voronov and good work in doing the research into the viability and market positioning of your project. Understanding the business of entertainment is just as, if not more so, than an outstanding screenplay, critical for achieving success. Show. Business. Bravo.

By the way I recommend to my students and everybody if you want to teach on line anything, writing, dance

Teach on line https://outschool.com/popular

Have a nice weekend

Okay, Sandra Isabel Correia , that's okay :) I can be a little impatient sometimes :') (and one of my messages is a question that already appeared one of my another messages xd)

Your are welcome, Imola Orbán :)))

What does that mean?

Kevin Hager what does what mean, Kevin?

I don't know. Could you help explain it to me?

I think these motions are going to be a big help, Amanda Toney!

That’s good news, Amanda Toney :))

Awesome news :)

Amanda Toney Those would be really positive steps for filmmakers, especially independent filmmakers. Hopefully they will pass in the new year. I anticipate they will have some stiff resistance from certain areas who don't like to be bothered with filmmakers at all, and there is a substantial loss of revenues from the permit process, which is not cheap. Keep our fingers crossed.

all these points would be great to get passed! every chance we get to show it can be less expensive here, the better.

Stories are about people, focus there. The audience needs to relate to your characters in some way. In my conversations with studio execs not one has mentioned a spectacle over characters/theme.

Abdullahi Ismail What Lindbergh E. Hollingsworth said.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Well when you put it like that it sounds a bit like financial/legal blackmail(ALLEGEDLY lol)

It's important to understand the scope and context of this. Here is Iger's breakdown: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bob-iger-openai...

As a former Disney filmmaker I can completely understand why this was done, but I believe the rollout and the subsequent announcement was handled horribly.

I would bet that billion dollars also includes proprietary infrastructure for the animation studio to incorporate within the pipeline. And likely creating a VFX pipeline. Currently, most of the live action VFX is farmed out.

In a bit of kismet, I have been digging deep into a few older documentaries on the animation side, as I am producing and directing one about the shuttered animation studio in Florida. WAKING SLEEPING BEAUTY and INSIDE PIXAR both lay a lot of evidence as to how Disney has ALWAYS tried to stay ahead of technology.

Meanwhile they vehemently protect their IP, the Google/MidJourney/Gemini lawsuits aside, they are known for going after daycare centers that dare paint their characters onto murals.

Where I think Iger has lost his touch and hurt the company is in the core value of its artists and stories. This is what would have Walt rolling over in his Frozen bed more than the tech.

https://deadline.com/2025/12/disney-openai-deal-animators-sora-1236651227/ - Disney’s OpenAI Deal: Soulless Exploitation Or Necessary Innovation? Former Mouse House Animators Have Thoughts

Laurie Ashbourne This is very interesting and compare it to the backlash by game devs currently aimed at Larian over comments by their CEO about allowing the usu of AI for ideation in building their next game, Divinity: https://youtu.be/q2HU0OX0bxA

Disney is widely noted to be, if not abusive, callous about its employee futures (I only worked on Disney productions, never for Disney, so I don't know first hand. You perhaps do). And certainly about its ruthlessness in asserting and controlling IP. But I don't think anyone really understands their long term reasoning for this move, if they themselves understand it. Compare to the Larian cafluffle, which is to my eyes ironic because the same devs screaming now that concept artists could lose jobs (none of them have) are the same group who happily cut voice actors out of the equation as soon as possible. Even more ironic is attacking Larian for this in light of the fact that Baldur's Gate 3 featured amazing voice actors who were already prominent in the gaming space, and who are now (following Clair Obscur) now moving into star status - all because Larian insisted that the human experience was more important than production timelines.

Looks like Disney sold out their soul years ago already - I hopethis investment is actually applied to their theme park rather than their upcoming movies...

Baron Rothschild I see, well then to answer your two specific questions:

Q1: When you’re packaging a project, how important is the underlying IP structure?

I am assuming in these answers that we are deciding to produce a property as the main producers so we can get it to market, on our own account, rather than being hired to produce it. In the latter case, we don't care about any of that stuff.

Still not sure what you mean specifically by "underlying IP structure" but it likely depends on the state of the IP we are looking at. If it's a script, that's literally all we care about aside from proof of copyright or chain of title. If it's a book still to be adapted, then we want very solid market numbers and we satisfy ourselves that the market the project wants is appropriate and real. If it's a biography or something that 3rd party personality rights might be affected by, that's a whole other thing but we again look for a legal assignment of life story (if necessary) and consider which 3rd party rights need cleared. We couldn't care less what the creator thinks about that and wouldn't rely on anything they have outside of legal documents. We're producing a script. World rules, continuity documents, etc. are relevant to production design, and the Director gets creative control of all that. That's the rule, because the Director is good at translating written story into a 90 minute or 2 hour screen experience, and writers are pretty awful at that. If a creator wanted to restrict that, then we would likely not take a project on, because we're concerned with audience and marketability first and we have to be able to craft a project so that people buy it. Of course if the marketability is related to production design, then that is part of the whole concept, but still the Director's idea must rule. Those things are the exclusive province of the Director or, in a series, the Showrunner, not the original writer, unless that person is the same person. In which case, we aren't likely involved as they are the producer and don't need us. There are exceptions, but they are inevitably tied to the existing market for the IP and/or the standing of the writer/creator of the IP.

There is a caveat to all that: We insist that the writer must normally sign off on changes to scripted dialog or significant scripted passages. Because the writer may have specific reasons for choosing specific phrasing, which potentially changes something else in the script. However, this writer may not be the actual creator of the IP, for example, when adapting a book to screen.

Q2: Do you look for creators who already understand ownership and long-term value?

Nope. If we are developing a show or a franchise, it is not as collaborative as other parts of the process. We ensure we have the rights to move forward regardless of the creator's ideas on ownership or long term value. To do otherwise almost always wastes a producer's efforts and resources because at some point the original creator will decide they want something new or different, or even lose interest. This is not just a common experience. It's almost a guaranteed experience. So our own understanding of the long term value is what rules. If the creator is experienced in the industry, then their opinion might be important and we do discuss that with them at the beginning and we will be informed by those opinions to the extent they are valid. If they are not experienced in the industry, then they are de facto not qualified to make the decisions we have to make. So it depends on the project, but we adjust accordingly.

Shadow, this is incredibly helpful — thank you for breaking down how producers evaluate IP. When I said ‘underlying IP structure,’ I wasn’t referring to creative control or production design. I meant the way a creator organizes and documents their world, rights, and continuity so that the chain of title is clean, the asset is cohesive, and the project is easier to evaluate from your side.

My interest is in how creators can prepare their IP so that when it does reach a producer, everything is already structured, documented, and clear. Not to restrict directors or showrunners — but to make the underlying rights and world architecture easier to understand and package.

Your perspective helps me refine that distinction, so I appreciate the insight. That makes complete sense, Shadow — especially the part about producers needing stability and long‑term consistency regardless of where the creator’s head is at. When I talk about creators understanding ownership or long‑term value, I’m not referring to them trying to control production decisions. I’m more focused on helping creators keep their rights, documents, and world materials organized so that when a producer like you steps in, everything is already clean, clear, and easy to work with.

In other words, I’m interested in the creator’s side of preparation — not in influencing the producer’s side of decision‑making. Your explanation helps me sharpen that distinction, so thank you for laying it out so clearly.

Baron Rothschild So your description of the "underlying IP" is clearer. Basically, anything other than the script is not needed and not wanted, unless it affects production design. If for some reason working papers are attached to a script and copyright registered (which would be very weird), then those are included. If it's a series, then the series bible will be part of the copyrighted work.

But take for instance Dune. No one cares about Frank Herbert's working papers or doodles or sketches or alternate stories or sequels. They are not what is being optioned. The book is being optioned and we hire a script writer to work from what is in the book. The vision of the creative team comes from the book and the script they develop from it.

So the writer needs (1) the script, (2) the registration of copyright (if it exists), and (3) if there are 3rd parties involved, the legally executed assignments and releases. Keeping in mind that (4) the writer is going to guarantee that the work is original to them and will indemnify the producer if turns out it breaches someone else's copyright. Anything else is irrelevant and distracting. Further materials can only raise questions, not make it easier to assess.

Shadow, I appreciate the clarity — and you’re absolutely right about what matters for optioning and production. The script, the registration, and the chain‑of‑title documents are the core assets a producer evaluates.

Where IPBSEs operate is a different layer of the ecosystem:

the financial layer, not the development layer.

When a creator structures an IPBSE, they’re not presenting extra materials for creative evaluation. They’re establishing:

- the existence of the underlying IP

- the ownership of it

- and the secured interest that allows it to function as a financial asset

The producer still only cares about the script and the rights.

The IPBSE is simply the financial wrapper that makes the IP recognizable in a collateral or entitlement context.

So your breakdown is exactly right for production decisions — and the IPBSE just sits upstream of that, in the asset‑structuring phase rather than the creative‑evaluation phase.

Shadow, your breakdown of what matters for production is spot‑on. What I’m exploring sits one layer upstream — where creative workflows and financial structures start to overlap. Most creators only think about their script in terms of pitching or optioning, but there’s a whole other conversation around how that same IP behaves as an asset before it ever reaches a producer’s desk.

I’d be interested in your perspective on where you see the legal/production side intersecting with the financial side as more creators begin structuring their IP earlier in the lifecycle. That’s the space I’m working in, and it’s where a lot of creators have blind spots.