I sometimes wonder how many people in Hollywood (or anywhere, for that matter) have actually heard the term “Dustbuster” before. I certainly hadn’t, at least not until I started working as a post-production assistant. Unless you really studied these things in college, it’s only once you start to work for (or with) a production company do you truly understand just how many different types of film and television production jobs there really are.

“Dustbuster” was the loose name given to the job of digital colorist assist-assist, though the job title was not exactly accurate (in fact, it always seemed an afterthought, something to give us some sort of hierarchy within the company). I mean, we were working a film post-production job, in an assistant capacity, beneath the Colorist Assists, so I suppose you could give us that particularly cumbersome label. However, to save time and spare confusion, I and my fellow workers were called dustbusters, as we were literally responsible for removing dust (as well as scratches, and blotches) from every single frame of every single film the company took on. The colorists needed an impeccably pristine “canvas” with which to do their work, and that’s where we came in.

The process for cleaning film is simple enough to describe on the surface: they would scan the film digitally, and would then send the files to the main computers in our workspace. The film was then broken up into sections, with each section typically assigned to one of the nine or so workstations. Each workstation was loaded with the company’s proprietary software program, which would run the film frame by frame, shot by shot, and scene by scene. The dustbusters would then literally clean the film, by digitally removing every scratch or hair or discoloration. We did this by surrounding the offending mark with a box, which would then scan the next frame for a similar image to render. If there was little movement, the job was simple; if there was a lot of movement, we then had to tweak the box to get it as close as possible to blemish-free.

If this sounds mundane, it’s because it was. An eight hour shift, locked in a small, dark, windowless room, working at a cubicle, and staring at the same couple of thousand frames of film all day isn’t exactly how I would describe the fun side of Hollywood. But more than that, it served to illustrate just how many production jobs there truly are, and how varied they can be. Now, whenever I look at a film’s budget, I can’t help but be impressed by the number of people working behind the scenes, on the smallest details, people whose names will never appear in the credits; I think of the countless production companies, each specializing in an aspect of the filmmaking process. And I marvel at just how big and yet small this town can feel.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

My first production assistant job was misleading, to say the least. It was back in the year 2000; I’d recently graduated from USC, having PA’d on various student films before. But I’d never worked a true production, and as such had little idea what to expect. So when the offer came to work a music video with a friend of mine, I figured it would give me a good chance to learn what a production assistant job entails in a short amount of time (I was assured the production wouldn’t go over two days, unlike a film, which could stretch out over a longer period).

I showed up at a studio in Hollywood dressed in comfortable clothes: sneakers, jeans and a tee-shirt, as I’d been instructed. I was met by my friend, who handed a walkie-talkie and showed me how to key the various channels. So far so good. He then took me around and introduced me to his boss, along with some of the other production assistants I’d be working with. More importantly, he taught me some of the valuable lexicon I would need while working on set: “what’s your 20?” (where are you?)… and “ten one hundred” (I’m in the bathroom). Personally, I didn’t think I’d ever feel comfortable letting thirty or so people know I was in the can, so I figured I’d just skip over that part. But I got a kick out of saying “what’s your 20?”, and used it often that first day. I think I even started throwing in things like “ETA five minutes”.

Anyway, only once I was on set was I told what they’d be shooting: turns out Bob Dylan was filming a video of his original song from Curtis Hanson’s film “Wonder Boys”. Everyone was instructed in no uncertain terms that, once Mr. Dylan was on set, we were all to maintain our distance, avoid prolonged eye contact, and lastly, under no circumstances, were we to talk to him. Ever. I nodded, figuring it was cool enough that I’d get to see Bob Dylan in person. And sure enough, when he walked on set, it was a bit of a thrill that he was standing only five feet away.

I didn’t expect what came next, however: in between shots, to help pass the time, Dylan decided to practice. He started strumming his guitar, and singing songs like “Hurricane” under his breath. I looked at the other production assistants around me, and could see the same barely-suppressed excitement on their faces: we were basically being treated to a private concert by the man himself. I didn’t think the day could get better from there, but it did.

Because of my limited experience, I was plucked from the set and sent to work the monitors in the video village, the area where the director (Hanson), the producers, and the talent all gathered to watch the various takes; in this case, the talent included Dylan, as well as Michael Douglas, who was there to reprise his role in the film for some scenes with Dylan. My job was simple: press play and rewind. I took drink orders, handed out coffee and pastries, and then settled in a chair next to Michael Douglas for the next couple of hours. The highlight came when everyone wandered away except for myself and Bob Dylan; figuring it would be rude not to talk to him, I struck up a conversation and we chatted for about five minutes. At that point, I couldn’t believe they were actually paying me to be there! When the day finally ended, I walked away whistling, having had one of my best days in this city. This is showbiz, I thought to myself; I now have a PRODUCTION ASSISTANT job, and I love it!

Two weeks later, I PA’d a music video in downtown Long Beach, for some crappy boy band that no one had ever heard of. It rained… I was stuck outside, hauling cables and lights, from 10p.m. to 9a.m…. I made $75… I got yelled at twice by the psychotic 2^nd Assistant Director… and I broke my walkie-talkie (and nearly my hand) when some idiot slammed a metal pipe into it. As the rain poured down, I marveled at just how much I had been misled.

This is showbiz, I thought to myself the next morning as I trudged home; and I now have a production assistant job. Yay.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Ever thought about landing a gig in Tinseltown? Well, here are 5 ways you can break into Hollywood by being a production assistant (in no particular order):

1. Get a Production Assistant Job
Working as a production assistant, or a PA, on a film or TV show is a beneficial way to learn about the production process and to get familiar with the folks making the decisions. The day-to-day duties can vary greatly depending on the production and budget, but the elbow-rubbing time can not be underestimated. Some will tell you assistants exist to feed the egos of their self-important bosses, but others know it’s a rite of passage to the Hollywood fraternity (or sorority). While much of the job consists of pouring coffee and answering phones, occasionally there can be some free time to read scripts and write coverage too. Also, production companies fill most new positions from within. When there’s a new position to fill, most managers would rather promote a qualified production assistant to the position, rather than hiring a stranger, even if some outside applicant had better work on his reel. In many studios, you find top people who initially started as PA’s. The key is getting in the gate in the first place.

Check out Media-Match to search for production assistant jobs and apply for as many as seem appropriate. For a small fee Media-Match will post your resume and try to match you with a job opening in the television and film industries. Also, it has a forum and a social network that allows you to interact with other people working as production assistants and job seekers looking for production assistant jobs.

2. Educate Yourself
Do you know what the terms “call sheet,” “sides,” “honey wagon,” and “call time” mean? If you don’t, you need to learn the terminology, “the lingo” that’s used in the industry. Or else, you can’t do your job properly as a production assistant.

Do you know the difference between a Director of Photography and an Assistant Director? Do you know what the Production Designer does? Learn more about the various production job roles found on television and film sets.

Next, familiarize yourself with the “trades.” These are magazines and newspapers geared towards entertainment industry professionals. The main ones are “The Hollywood Reporter,” “Variety,” “Film & Video,” and “Backstage West/East”. “Film & Video” is specifically for those who work behind the camera. Get “The Hollywood Reporter” on Tuesdays and “Variety” on Fridays. Those are the two days when the Production Charts are listed.

Learn as much as you can about the workings of film and TV production before you arrive on set for your first day of work.

3. Network, Network, Network
In Hollywood it’s not so much what you know as who you know in the entertainment industry. As many Tinseltown residents will tell you, this city is built on connections.
Take advantage and leverage your connections as a production assistant. Network, network, network. Talk to the people you work with and get to know them. The film or television industry is all about who you know and the people you are working with are a great place to start. Make those connections. You can meet people this way and begin to build up a network and beef up your Rolodex.

4. Be Persistent
Being a production assistant is not glamorous, but it is an important role. While you are on a set, be a sponge and soak up everything you can. When one show ends, be on the lookout for another one. Don’t ever stop working or looking for work because the next <a href=”http://www.media-match.com/jobsboard.php” title=”Production Assistant Job”>production assistant job</a> you take could be the one that takes you to the next level in your career.

5. Figure Out Your Ultimate Goal
Think about what your eventual career goal is. When you’re working as a production assistant, knowing what you want to do and knowing what you must accomplish before you get there is an effective way to move up. You have to put yourself on the proper path to where you want to be in the film or television industry.

If you’re currently a production assistant or are pursuing to be one, we’d like to hear your tips and suggestions.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I’ve been hearing tidbits for months now, from various friends and family in the northeast, about a film studio or two popping up in that area.  The talk centers around the number and variety of film and television production jobs that will be available, in complexes that are set to rival those found anywhere in the country (even Los Angeles).  As time went on, the chatter grew, and so I decided to look into the claims; and soon, two words stood out above the others, both in terms of scope and ambition: Hollywood East.

That’s right, film and television production is coming to Massachusetts in a way never-before seen on the east coast.  As of now, there are two distinct groups emerging as favorites to build studios within the state.  The first, Plymouth Rock Studios, is a film and television digital complex set to open in Plymouth, MA; the second is Los Angeles-based International Studio Group, which intends to build eleven sound stages and related office space in SouthField, MA.  Both of these groups intend to work together, not in competition, to ensure that the larger goal of creating a viable studio system in the state is reached.

These are no fly-by-night endeavors, the kind of operations that build themselves up on promises but fail to deliver for whatever reason (anything from a lack of funding, to a lack of approval by the local legislature).  No, these are legitimate collections of Hollywood producers and executives, including a former producer who once ran Paramount, Walt Disney and Touchstone studios.  And yet despite coming from outside the state, these men and women are showing a keen understanding of how to work with local governments and business leaders, to not only gain approval for the land they need, but also to clearly and concisely lay out their plan for what will be an ambitious business model (one that could conceivably bring 7,000 jobs to their respective regions).  There’s also a youth-oriented feeling among many of the proposals for the studio development, with the goal of retaining a creative and young workforce who would otherwise be lured to California or New York in their pursuit of filmmaking opportunities.

And yet this kind of ambition should come as no surprise to anyone who’s followed the film tax credit battles that have been waged these past few years between states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Michigan.  Each one is looking to make the claim of being THE BEST home for filmmaking outside of Hollywood, and are competing to be just that.  Such grand-scale plans are exactly what Massachusetts has been searching for ever since the 25% film tax credit that was created in 2006 (and subsequently expanded in July 2007).  There have even been public hearings on proposed legislation to give an equally-high tax credit on studio construction costs as well.  Already the state has seen a dramatic increase in production in the Commonwealth, and if the first step of their intent was to attract the filmmakers, then the next logical step seems to be keeping them there.  Hence the idea behind Hollywood East.

Next up, now that we know who the players are, we’ll take a look at what they’re offering, everything from specific jobs in film and television, to increases in tourism…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It’s been announced that ABC has decided not to produce any new episodes of “Pushing Daisies”.  Despite critical acclaim and the love of their small yet fiercely devoted audience, ABC is going to pull the plug.  Is this the result of an inability to market the show properly?  Was the work-stoppage that resulted from the writer’s strike simply too much for the show’s creators to overcome?  Did the diminished returns not justify the show’s high budget?  Most likely, the answer lies in a combination of the three.  When the TV show first premiered, the initial advertising push was strong, as was the promotion for the second season, but any momentum gained last season was seemingly lost once the strike took hold of Hollywood.  

The vocal support from critics notwithstanding, the show faced a steep climb to reclaim the attention of its casual viewers (loyal viewers will always be there for a show they love – it’s the viewer who tunes in in passing who’s the hardest to grab).  In the aftermath of the writer’s strike, this is a perfect example of “the better the show, the harder the road”.  Any show can have problems following up a successful first year… yet battling those problems while also climbing back from a strike is even more daunting.  And although it was a procedural drama with relatively simple running storylines, the show apparently had problems creating a strong second-season push.  It debuted to numbers well below those of last season’s premiere, undoubtedly causing the executives at ABC to rethink their ties to the show.

As the audience, all of this is to our disadvantage.  We, too, are casualties of this strike.  A show like “Pushing Daisies” needs stability and time to grow, due to its own quirky nature and the unusual charm of its characters.  And we as the audience needed time to appreciate it.  But that’s what makes shows like this so much fun to watch, is that they accept their quirks, and in fact revel in them.  From episode one, “Pushing Daisies” knew itself and its characters; they trusted the idea that, with enough time, the audience would as well.  Unfortunately, the strike ruined that, and we are now left to mourn one of the more unfortunate victims of this television season.  

In other cancellation news…
On October 31, 2008, Fox announced its decision to cancel “King of the Hill” after its 13th season, and here’s guessing it goes quietly into the night, with little to no fanfare to celebrate its remarkable run.  And yet this is only fitting, considering that’s how the show has thrived all these years: by keeping below the radar, and plowing ahead slowly but surely.  Much like the main character Hank Hill, “King of the Hill” has been one of television’s steadiest performers, always managing to keep itself relevant despite being seemingly overshadowed by it’s more prolific brethren “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy”.  This television show had a broad appeal that few shows can match; the storylines covered a variety of topics, from a variety of perspectives, and yet it never lost sight of its true self.  The characters, though the lived in Texas, were more than just left or right, red state or blue state… they were real people with real morals, who never bowed to the pressure to change who or what they were.  And in some small way, it’s nice to know they never will.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Emmy nominations for 2008 were released, and while premium cable and the broadcast networks are still dominant forces in television, we are clearly seeing a growth of basic cable programming, both in terms of quality and recognition.  Shows like ‘Breaking Bad’, ‘Mad Men’, and ‘Damages’ have all garnered attention this year, and their nominations in various categories reflect that.  For these shows’ networks, AMC and FX, it is validation that ad-supported niche cable shows can appeal to voters and audiences alike.

Every year, the Hollywood community inevitably complains about the shows that didn’t get nominated (I would include myself in that list, seeing as how ‘Battlestar Galactica’ was not nominated for best drama series, while ‘Lost’ was overlooked in the writing and directing categories; however, since the former received a writing nod, and the latter is once again in the running for best drama, I really can’t complain).  But this year is different, and should be remembered as such, for the fact that two basic cable networks have shows that are being considered for best drama.  That is not to take anything away from what the broadcast networks have done; shows like ‘House’ and the aforementioned ‘Lost’ not only withstand the test of time, they actually reinvent themselves to remain fresh and interesting.  The cable networks, too, have remained viable, with shows like ‘Dexter’ and ‘The Wire’ receiving nothing but praise from fans and critics both. 

But the emergence of networks like AMC is notable for the fact that they have come seemingly out of nowhere to challenge convention.  They have presented us with small, character-driven shows dominated by great acting and compelling writing, and as a result have found steadily growing audiences.  They even seem to come up with ways to deal with some of the challenges facing television as a whole, such as the growing worry that people with DVRs are fast-forwarding through commercials: while watching ‘Mad Men’, a show about ad executives in the 1960’s, each first-half commercial break features title cards that give interesting tidbits about the sponsor or product in the ensuing commercials (who knew the first Orkin ad dates way back to 1954?)  Simple yet informative, these commercial teasers, for lack of a better description, keep you interested – they actually make you want to watch the commercial!  It’s creativity like this that illustrates, in a small way, what networks like AMC bring to the mix. 

Basic cable networks in general have been upping the ante in recent years.  It’s fitting that FX has recently changed its slogan to “There is No Box”, because that is how the network approaches its programming.  By thinking beyond what’s safe and what works, they have risen the level of quality; in doing so, they have also questioned many of Hollywood’s beliefs, including what, exactly, a hero should look and act like.  FX (along with TNT and USA) has also helped to dispel the notion that there are no primetime, desirable roles for women over 40 – just ask Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, or Kyra Sedgwick.

Here’s hoping that the broadcast networks take a look at what their basic cable counterparts are doing, and realize that there are in fact lessons to be learned. 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As Comic-Con prepares to descend on San Diego on July 24^th, it’s worth taking a quick look to see just how this small gathering of comic book aficionados became such an annual powerhouse.  Some will say things really took off when the “Harry Potter”, “Lord of the Rings”, and “X-Men” franchises were all released – three enormously popular (and successful) science-fiction/fantasy film series that had a home at the convention; it was there that fans could find the actors, the stories, and all the additional merchandise they could want.  Yet it is simplistic to say that Hollywood has only recently taken notice of the event; it has had a presence there almost since the beginning, after all, with Lucasfilm setting up a booth at the 1976 convention to promote “Star Wars”.  Even Mark Hamill – Luke Skywalker himself – was once a young comic book fan; he recently set his film “Comic Book: The Movie” at the convention, knowing what it’s like to both be on the stage and in the audience.

Beyond merely the industry taking notice, the growth of Comic-Con lies with those actually attending the event.  What we’re seeing is a growing trend of quality.  Comic fans have always been passionate about story; they’ve always had an exacting stance on what the characters can and cannot do.  And they now have the power to demand that quality from the studios and the filmmakers.  As films like “Iron Man” and the new “Star Trek” and “The Incredible Hulk” are brought to the big screen, their fans scrutinize every detail for authenticity… they discuss rumors, dig for advance copies of the script, and theorize to no end.  Some filmmakers find this intrusive, feeling it hinders the creative process.  Others, though, have taken notice, and have in fact embraced these fans (called “fanboys” for their devotion).  For these filmmakers, it makes sense to use this resource.  These directors and writers understand full well that any work based on an existing product will have to get these people’s stamp of approval… an advance thumbs-up can do wonders; conversely, early bad press can be hard to overcome.

In the end, the fans just want to see the best product they can, and while it’s not possible to satisfy all of them all the time, one can still get close. With the growth of the internet – a realm dominated initially by those who love computers – we’ve seen an influx of fan sites like “Ain’t It Cool News”, whose sole purpose was to analyze, discuss, and review their favorite films and television shows.  Now, this site has grown so much since its inception that its founder, Harry Knowles, is now being invited by directors like J.J. Abrams to view a clip of his newest “Star Trek” film – months before its release – in the hopes that he’ll relate something positive to his readers.  This kind of buzz is vital to a film’s success, especially those in the science-fiction and fantasy realms, and guys like Abrams are smart enough to realize it.  That’s why he also uses Comic-con to promote his hit show “Lost”, drawing in the audience with mysteries and teasers well after the show has hit its summer break. 

Comic-Con’s growth can also be attributed to the development of its truest fans.  Back in the 70’s, the convention started with only a few hundred people; one of the first notable guests was not a filmmaker but the sci-fi author, Ray Bradbury.  As the convention grew, it attracted kids of all ages, whose love of comics and films brought them together.  Now, these children are adults, and are themselves responsible for many of the films and TV shows that screen there.  The kids have grown up, yet they still have the same exacting standards as when they were young.  It is this dedication to quality that keeps the convention going, and it will continue to thrive so long as it stays true to this vision.

That, and it also doesn’t hurt that Ray Bradbury will be there again this year…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

More than three months after the Writers Guild of America’s strike, Hollywood is facing a new round of labor negotiations that, should they fail, could spell another potentially long strike for the city (and California as a whole).  As the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) negotiate with AMPTP (the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers), the state is still trying to right itself after the WGA shutdown last November.

Anyone who watches television can clearly see the surface effects of the WGA strike – everything from shows cancelled outright, to production schedules that have been pushed back by months – some even until next year (film production also suffered, but that was mostly in rushed scripts and a lack of rewrites on set).  But in order to appreciate the full magnitude of the three months of work-stoppage, one has to dig deeper, specifically into the economic impact the strike has had on all forms of industry-related professions, and on the state’s fiscal health in general.  A report by the Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank, details the numerous ways in which the strike has had (and will continue to have) a lingering effect.  The information contained in this report is all a result of the strike, and shows the roll it played in harming the already struggling state and local economies.

“Substantial”.  This is the word the report uses to describe the strike’s effect on Los Angeles and California, specifically in job loss and overall economic health.  “The state is projected to show a total loss of 37,700 jobs and $2.1 billion in lost output from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the end of 2008. Total personal income and total wages and salaries are projected to decline by $3.1 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively.”  All of these figures, attributable to the strike.  What’s most amazing about these facts is the vast reach of the strike, hitting not just actors and writers and everyone involved in production (hair and makeup artists, lighting technicians, camera operators, set designers, etc.), but also those peripheral to the industry, such as caterers and hotel staff.  The rippling effect of so many people having to tighten their belts has even caused finance, insurance, construction, and health-care to suffer.

According to the report, the strike was one of many factors that helped push California into a recession this year.  As a result, the strike “will continue to resonate over time, causing direct impact on employment, output, and wages and salaries, in turn affecting retail sales and causing ripples through other industries.”  There are also other lingering concerns, for instance a decline in television viewership; people had three months to kill, after all, and ended up turning to alternate sources of entertainment.  Bringing these viewers back into the fold is imperative, for the studios as well as for the advertisers who provide their revenue; however, as mentioned above, television executives are still having difficulties arranging their schedules to bring them back to normal levels.  Until they do, advertisers will remain wary.

This is just a basic overview on the negative effects the strike has had on our economy.  The good news, however, is that “[these effects] will gradually diminish over time; by the beginning of 2009, its effect on most industries will finally drop to a barely noticeable level.”  Unfortunately, this will happen only if SAG and AFTRA can settle their differences and coordinate their negotiations with AMPTP; otherwise, their current contract will expire today, and the unions may call a strike.  If that happens, the impact of the WGA strike will not be replaced, it will in fact be magnified.  We will then be faced with two distinct work-stoppages in less than a year, a frightening prospect for a state that thrives on the entertainment industry flowing smoothly.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I’ve seen more and more articles recently decrying “runaway film production” – film and TV shows leaving our city and our state, and heading toward more tax-friendly environs.  I have heard for years about Canada, for instance, offering a way out to productions seeking to trim costs… their streets and their locations serve well as a substitute for American locales, but at lower prices (for both location use as well as crews).  But I didn’t know why, in the past year, the issue had ballooned.  So I decided to do some research, to discover what moves the “competition” had made, and what (if anything) our state had done in the past few years to halt this trend.

One article I found dated back to November of 2006.  It talked about the need to retain film production in Los Angeles, and was written by our own mayor, Antonio R. Villaraigosa.  He was writing the piece in response to an editorial in the LA Times, which criticized closing the 105 in order to film a scene for “Live Free or Die Hard”; he stated in simple yet concise tones the need for our legislators to do all they can to keep these productions from heading elsewhere.  He writes: “Today, only 11% of all feature films are being made in California, and we cannot afford to cede this integral industry to other cities, especially as competition grows more fierce.”  He then goes on to cite that competition, pointing out that “14 states [have] passed new tax incentives or improved existing incentives for film productions,” and the “troubling, long-term implications to that trend.”  Finally, he rounds out his opinion piece by mentioning his support AB 777, a bill which could provide tax incentives for productions to stay in California. 

Sounds good to me.  So, this being a year-and-a-half ago, I did some research to find out what happened to “Assembly Bill 777 – Motion Picture Production Tax Incentives for California”.  While some criticism was levied against it with respect to its effectiveness, or the cost to California taxpayers, overall the bill seemed to be a good start.  The only problem is, this bill seems to have disappeared.  The most recent reference I could find to AB 777 was dated February of 2007, and talked about cruelty to elephants.  Obviously, the bill had had a makeover.

Searching for similar bills led me to an article from June of 2007.  One line in particular caught my eye, because of its familiarity:  “We will not sit idly by and watch this homegrown industry disappear because other states are being more aggressive.” This from Majority Leader Karen Bass, of Los Angeles.  Very similar to Villaraigosa’s stance, and yet again, I can find no follow-up article discussing a bill being passed.  It seems this push, too, had stalled.

I did, however, find an article from April of this year, which discusses the New York State legislature’s plan to triple their film and TV tax credits for productions within its borders.  The article goes on to say how “New York City [in particular] also offers a 5% credit, so city shoots can reap a total of 35%.”  And what was the reasoning for these increased credits?  Was the legislature responding to some move made by California’s lawmakers, a sort of tit-for-tat?  Was it trying to break the west coast’s hold on film and TV production?  No, these incentives were done “in a bid to regain an edge over [New York’s] credit-happy neighbors Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.”  That’s right – not to counter any moves that California or Hollywood had made, but to beat the moves made by other states.

Which finally led me to this article, from May 2008, in which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for legislative action, saying “California must increase tax incentives to movie and television studios as a way to keep them from moving their productions out of state.”  These comments came days after ABC Studios said it was moving production of ”Ugly Betty” from Los Angeles to New York – meaning the siphoning has extended to include not just individual shoots, but entire productions as well.  The article adds that Schwarzenegger has been pushing for such legislation for four years, but so far has found no success.

That is our loss – and this loss extends beyond the revenue generated by the productions themselves.  It seems simple to say, but keeping these shoots in Los Angeles and California in general can only have a positive impact, especially on tourism.  Because what else are we primarily known for, if not being the entertainment capital of the world?  Take away our film and TV shoots, and you take a major part of our identity.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Too often, it seems, one hears about the vast differences between the coasts and the central states… “flyover states” they’re called, as though only to be appreciated (if at all) while passing beneath us.  There’s always talk of Hollywood executives being out of touch with these average television-watchers, of their belief that those people tend to embrace simpler, cruder entertainment.  It’s a constant cycle – Hollywood dumbs down television, thinking the average person need only a few explosions and some nudity to be entertained, and the “common man” strikes back that the people in Hollywood can’t make a decent show to save their lives.

To be honest, television is often out of touch.  It does tend to pander to its audience.  It gives us shows like “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” and “The Moment of Truth”.  This is what is called mindless entertainment: easy to ingest, without needing too much thought to do so.  And these are only two examples that typify the “make it cheap, make it simple, and make plenty of it” mentality, the idea that if this is what the people want, then we’re going to give it to them. 

The thing is, this is not what the audience really wants – not exclusively.  Sure, reality programming can be a nice break, a fun form of escapism.  But can you imagine if that was all television had to offer?  If every channel had some form of Lindsay Lohan’s mother staring back at you?  What a truly horrifying thought.  And yet, given the chance, many TV executives would do just that.  Make it cheap, and make it simple, right?  But the only problem is, audiences aren’t simple.  The emergence of reality shows in the past decade or so does not mean that they have a limited threshold of taste.  If anything, it means they are simply waiting to be challenged more often.

Take a look at any successful TV show, and the reason for its success can be traced to its acceptance by a vast audience – not just those on the east or west coasts (or the middle states), but all across the country.  As such, there can be no such thing as a “flyover state”, because no viewer should be ignored, or pandered to.  People in Kansas or Oklahoma are the heart and soul of any audience (just like those in California or New York), and they have just as much need for good entertainment as anyone.  A truly successful television show has at its heart creators that understand this need, and shape themselves to reach as wide an audience as possible.  Take “Lost”, for example, with its blend of action and special effects, thought-provoking writing, and impeccable acting.  The show is many things to many people, and is able to maintain this balance while never compromising its integrity.  It’s as if the creators started out by looking at their audience and at themselves, saying “we can give people intelligent characters and situations – we can stimulate their hearts and their minds and still get their pulses racing”.  They trusted their audience from day one; they didn’t dumb down their work, or spoon-feed it to their viewers.  In turn, their audience trusted them, and are consistently rewarded because of it.

This is not meant to be a discussion on the merits of reality versus scripted television; as mentioned above, both have something unique to offer.  But it would be nice, at the end of the day, to see a greater number of TV shows embrace the idea that their audience is more clever than they’ve been given credit for.  It would be nice if television executives sought out that balance – if they pushed themselves to spread their visions to as many people as possible without compromising those visions. 

Basically, it would be nice if they just shelved “A Shot at Love 3” and gave us something more…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!