Producing

You're welcome, Yanina Koroleva. I've been thinking about writing a no-dialogue short script.

Don't know, "Sense and Sensibility" and "Room with a View" probably did good job.

Yes — both of those films let emotion live in the silence between the characters.

That’s exactly the kind of tension I’m exploring in this scene as well.

The beauty of filmmaking and having a director with a strong vision at the helm. You put Lynne Ramsey or Nicholas Winding Refn at the helm of this scene at it could be haunting and silent. Personally, I love limited dialogue; but certain filmmakers could make the dialogue work well for a scene like this.

Cool prompt Yanina Koroleva!

Thank you, Sean — exactly.

The right director can let the emotion breathe in silence.

That’s the kind of atmosphere I’m drawn to — where the audience "feels" the connection before anyone speaks.

Sean Patrick Burke, thank you so much for sharing with us your strategy or what calls you more. Yes, each producer has its own approach. I really resonate with your approach. The emphasis on genre and logline as initial filters makes so much sense, especially when you're aligning with market viability and personal passion. I completely agree that the script is the heart of it all. And yes, having some financing or cast attached can definitely move the needle, but I appreciate your honesty about steering clear of overly crowded producing teams. That’s a lesson many of us learn the hard way. Most of all, I love what you said about social impact. Creating content that matters, that moves people and sparks conversation, is what drives me too. Striking that balance between meaning and market performance is the sweet spot we all strive for. Thanks again for your insight

I lean in when the core value of the story is unmistakable. Before cast attachments or budget ranges, I’m always asking: What is this really about emotionally, and why now? If that isn’t clear, the rest doesn’t matter. From there, I check for craft and voice. Is the writer in control of their storytelling, tone, and character? Is this a creative team I want to champion? Do our visions align? And importantly, do I see a realistic path forward in terms of budget, partners, and buyers?

For me, it always comes back to:

Clarity of intention + emotional resonance + a pathway to audience.

Laura Notarianni and Sean Patrick Burke - I am curious if your responses align in the same way with Television as with Features. Especially as it relates to bringing it to market - so assuming you have a script and story you love is the process similar for television. Also - what can a writer do that does sell a pilot to be included in the writing team for the series as a whole?

Darrell Pennington while they are very different with the approach to getting them made, for me personally, it is a similar way for me to want to sign on. I do look at TV very differently than films for the market. TV I like to look at existing IP or strong source material. Currently, all of our shows have excellent book or life rights.

I think being a writer in the writing room is a case by case situation. If the source material is dependent on the writer that created it, I am sure that plays a huge factor. I think just be transparent with your goals when going to shop it around is the key. You do have the power to turn down a deal if it isn't right for your goals although the ultimate goal is to get your show made.

If someone writes a super compelling piece with solid source material (hopefully solid existing IP), people will want to be a part of it.

Sean Patrick Burke Thank you for that insight, very helpful.

Totally agree

asked for an add

When I was shooting a hidden-camera show called Krazie Kenyan, I used to take the cast through screen presence sessions between shoots — techniques I’d studied from some of Hollywood’s greats. But beyond that, I always saw every project as a bridge to the next. Everyone on set — cast or crew — had to tell me where they wanted to go next, what kind of projects or directors they hoped to work with. My job was to give them my best, then help them move toward theirs. I would make the introduction based on their growth.

How very generous of you, Daniel. Encouraging individuals improves not only their own careers but the entire industry. You're creating Win-Win situations all round.

good idea!

You could search for a producer in Stage 32's Browse Members section, Roz Sohnen. www.stage32.com/people?name=&location=&roles=Producer

Honestly, you're asking for someone to do work on spec and that's more than a hard thing to sell. Asking for payment arrangements would be more appropriate if you cannot afford a reasonable fee.

Thanks, Shadow—good point. To clarify, I’m not asking anyone to work on spec. I’m looking for an indie-friendly transactional attorney who’ll do a brief intro call and can offer structured payment arrangements (e.g., a capped first-pass review with staged payments once an agreement is in play). If you—or anyone—has referrals, I’d be grateful.

If you are talking about actors as "name" talent the reason why they might be insisted upon is that they are known for certain personalities and audiences would want to see a version of that in their portrayal of a character. It's all about the general risk aversion of studio executives - always trying for the familiar since they perceive audiences as looking for it. It is the same reason why they are doing all those remakes and sequels and such and why they are thinking "IP" and "cinematic universes". It gets past some of the initial resistance to seeing a movie. This, of course, can be overcome with a noteworthy performance that gets some attention where word of mouth will do the talking for you. Because of the high cost of tickets and concessions going to the movies has become a high stakes gamble for much of the audience. If if cost less they would not feel as bad about seeing something that wasn't so good and might have money left over to try again with another movie. As far as the title of the article you attached it has a lot to do with the movie these A-listers are in. Their names might get the first few ticket buyers in the door but if the movie is bad word of mouth will keep the rest away.

This is a great discussion. The article gave some great insight. The issue I am seeing with many of these "independent" movies coming out these days are the budgets. A24 is putting out $100 Million budgeted films that are difficult to recoup on. I think true independent films have the ability to hone in on lower budgets and make them economically more viable. That is a totally separate discussion though.

I do think independent films need to focus on name talent. It can be in the form of an actor/actress or two, or the ensemble. It also depends on Genre. Dramas desperately need name talent to succeed in the industry. There are the exceptions, but they are rare in dramas. Thriller/horror films may not rely as heavily on name talent because the genre helps for sales as well.

This is a great discussion though Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg ! Thank you for bringing it up.

In some cases "name" talent reduces the overall effectiveness of a film. It can be difficult to suspend disbelief/get lost in another world when you immediately recognise the character as a famous actor.

Kathryn Zizek this is a great point and something definitely to take a look at. In this world, we need to separate the business versus the creative. I can speak from a producer, I have a fiduciary responsibility to recoup any investments procured for the film. My job as a producer is to mitigate as much risk as possible for the investors. Things like incentives and Government grants or rebate programs help significantly. Having named talent is the biggest factor because it helps a film get a lucrative sales/distribution deal. There definitely needs to be a happy medium when it comes to casting the right folks though. I agree that we don't want to take the viewer out of the movie with poor casting choices solely to benefit the sales and marketability of a film.

David Thrasher Well, maybe sometimes a funder will have some idea in their mind about fitting talent to role - but almost never will they actually read the script before this discussion occurs. (In fact, they often don't ever read the script at all, which is crazy, but might suggest why we see the movies we see getting to screen) The conversation about what "name" you have attached has different nuances, in many cases. First, it's a knee-jerk response, almost without thought. Second, while historically the star system developed out of the studio system, and has been used to keep budgets high and audiences engaged, so that reflex has reasoning behind it. But three, it's no longer reliably true that "star" names boost box office or other revenues, though it is still true that they by definition raise awareness IF and ONLY IF those names are prominent in marketing. Four - and this one is for real - it doesn't matter who you have attached. Your funder is going to question it and ask for more - because that's what they do. The reason they do this is a negotiating position - they want to minimize the value of your project. It's not about the ultimate good of the show at that point, it's about how much of the project they might get to control, at what cost. The easiest way to do that is to find some fault with your attached cast in the market, or for this kind of film.

A flagship film is a company's major movie, Sandra Isabel Correia. Some companies release their flagship movies during the summer, on Halloween, Thanksgiving, etc. It can be any genre.

Thanks for explaining, Maurice Vaughan. I didn't know. So, we can call Disney, Warner Bros., and others' films "flagship films"? Now I understand.

You're welcome, Sandra Isabel Correia. Yeah, if their films are major movies. Sometimes those companies release films that aren't major.

Learning with you Maurice Vaughan. Thank you

You're welcome, Sandra Isabel Correia.