Interesting article. Board doesn't let me post anything over 10,000 characters.
*****************
Final Cut
By Stephen Galloway
When news leaked that Peter Jackson would receive $20 million to direct Universal's remake of 1933's "King Kong," it drew gasps within the film industry. It was the first time in history that a director had been paid as much as an A-list star. True, the fee also covered Jackson's duties as co-writer and producer, but these were quibbles in the minds of most observers, footnotes to what remained a mold-breaking deal.
The truth of the matter is that Jackson's salary was indicative of something else: an increased polarization between the very top directors and the rest of the directing community — a community composed of filmmakers who are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain full control over their projects in a bottom-line-minded corporate world.
A decade ago, final cut — the right of a director to edit a film exactly as he pleases and have it released in theaters that way — was almost mandatory for any filmmaker who wanted to prove that he had arrived. It was granted to directors who had truly demonstrated their worth, either artistically or at the boxoffice, from Spike Lee to Kenneth Branagh, Martin Scorsese to Steven Spielberg.
Today, many directors say it is almost impossible to get final cut from a major studio, and if they are lucky enough to get it, it is a concession laced with provisos, often stipulating that the director's cut will stay in place only if test screenings prove highly successful. In other words, a director gets final cut provided that test audiences love his film.
"There was always a kind of tug-of-war between management and talent," says director Sydney Pollack (1985's "Out of Africa"). "But it has gotten much worse as (the business) has gotten more corporatized."
A typical contract, obtained from one major studio, reads as follows: The director will have his "artist's cut(s)" so long as: "(a) Artist delivers the picture to the studio in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 below; (b) The final negative cost of the picture does not, or in the studio's sole opinion will not, exceed 110% of the final below-the-line budget approved by the studio, (excluding costs due to force majeure, changes approved in writing by a business affairs executive of the studio, retroactive union scale increases, and losses to the studio reimbursed by insurance); (c) Production and/or postproduction of such a picture is not over-schedule by the lesser of three days or 10% of the total number of days of principal photography of such picture; and (d) Artist is not in breach or default hereunder."
Then, and only then, "subject to the studio's release date plans and release exigencies, Artist shall be entitled to have final United States Theatrical Cut (U.S. Final Cut) of the picture."
This language is not reserved for newcomers or unproven players. Michael Bay, one of the highest-paid helmers in the business, only received final cut on 2001's "Pearl Harbor" in exchange for promising the Walt Disney Co. that the budget of the film would not exceed $145 million. He also had to accept that overages would come out of his fee and agree not to take any upfront salary. Even then, he shared final cut with producer Jerry Bruckheimer. "But that's fine because Jerry has never said, 'You have to take this out,'" Bay says.
Some studios never give final cut at all — although exceptions can be made if Spielberg or James Cameron wants to sign onto a project. Most would rather offer a top director an exorbitant salary than surrender ultimate control of a film; top directors can now earn $5 million or more per movie, with a share of the back end.
"The studios are more willing to throw money at a problem than give up control," says one industry insider. "In this sort of 'tentpole' world, as you move toward a slate where you have $100 million-plus investments in (a film), not counting marketing and prints, the director may have much more economic power — because you need that director to bring in the project on time and with a vision and for a budget — but you are probably more reluctant to turn over final cut to him. Where the power is has shifted."
Executives say several factors are contributing to the studios' reticence — the turbulent economy foremost among them. The average cost to make and market a film is roughly $89.4 million per studio release, and studios have recently had to tangle with directors who either had final cut or refused to cooperate with the studios' requests in the editing of their films.
*****************
Final Cut
By Stephen Galloway
When news leaked that Peter Jackson would receive $20 million to direct Universal's remake of 1933's "King Kong," it drew gasps within the film industry. It was the first time in history that a director had been paid as much as an A-list star. True, the fee also covered Jackson's duties as co-writer and producer, but these were quibbles in the minds of most observers, footnotes to what remained a mold-breaking deal.
The truth of the matter is that Jackson's salary was indicative of something else: an increased polarization between the very top directors and the rest of the directing community — a community composed of filmmakers who are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain full control over their projects in a bottom-line-minded corporate world.
A decade ago, final cut — the right of a director to edit a film exactly as he pleases and have it released in theaters that way — was almost mandatory for any filmmaker who wanted to prove that he had arrived. It was granted to directors who had truly demonstrated their worth, either artistically or at the boxoffice, from Spike Lee to Kenneth Branagh, Martin Scorsese to Steven Spielberg.
Today, many directors say it is almost impossible to get final cut from a major studio, and if they are lucky enough to get it, it is a concession laced with provisos, often stipulating that the director's cut will stay in place only if test screenings prove highly successful. In other words, a director gets final cut provided that test audiences love his film.
"There was always a kind of tug-of-war between management and talent," says director Sydney Pollack (1985's "Out of Africa"). "But it has gotten much worse as (the business) has gotten more corporatized."
A typical contract, obtained from one major studio, reads as follows: The director will have his "artist's cut(s)" so long as: "(a) Artist delivers the picture to the studio in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 below; (b) The final negative cost of the picture does not, or in the studio's sole opinion will not, exceed 110% of the final below-the-line budget approved by the studio, (excluding costs due to force majeure, changes approved in writing by a business affairs executive of the studio, retroactive union scale increases, and losses to the studio reimbursed by insurance); (c) Production and/or postproduction of such a picture is not over-schedule by the lesser of three days or 10% of the total number of days of principal photography of such picture; and (d) Artist is not in breach or default hereunder."
Then, and only then, "subject to the studio's release date plans and release exigencies, Artist shall be entitled to have final United States Theatrical Cut (U.S. Final Cut) of the picture."
This language is not reserved for newcomers or unproven players. Michael Bay, one of the highest-paid helmers in the business, only received final cut on 2001's "Pearl Harbor" in exchange for promising the Walt Disney Co. that the budget of the film would not exceed $145 million. He also had to accept that overages would come out of his fee and agree not to take any upfront salary. Even then, he shared final cut with producer Jerry Bruckheimer. "But that's fine because Jerry has never said, 'You have to take this out,'" Bay says.
Some studios never give final cut at all — although exceptions can be made if Spielberg or James Cameron wants to sign onto a project. Most would rather offer a top director an exorbitant salary than surrender ultimate control of a film; top directors can now earn $5 million or more per movie, with a share of the back end.
"The studios are more willing to throw money at a problem than give up control," says one industry insider. "In this sort of 'tentpole' world, as you move toward a slate where you have $100 million-plus investments in (a film), not counting marketing and prints, the director may have much more economic power — because you need that director to bring in the project on time and with a vision and for a budget — but you are probably more reluctant to turn over final cut to him. Where the power is has shifted."
Executives say several factors are contributing to the studios' reticence — the turbulent economy foremost among them. The average cost to make and market a film is roughly $89.4 million per studio release, and studios have recently had to tangle with directors who either had final cut or refused to cooperate with the studios' requests in the editing of their films.
