Post-Production : Going Postal - Group Question 1 by Mario Leone

That's a huge question and probably worth a hour-long panel discussion to do it justice. But I do think it falls under the umbrella of "know your tools". The tools are changing, rapidly now, and storytellers benefit from understanding how tools can change and potentially improve or degrade the process. However, the actual process of developing, crafting and telling a story has not fundamentally changed, so the foundations of story are still as valid today as they were 1000 years ago.

Depends on whether you are speaking about independent creators or studio/studio sub creators. For the latter (studios) it allows corporate bean counters and incapable producers to cut costs and pressure people to get things done faster and cheaper - from writers through to all post people. This has already led and will continue to lead to more absolute reliance on reboot, rehash, repeat and standard, common techniques and off-the-shelf effects which become cliche within minutes in a global industry, leading (as it has) to a general rise in big budget garbage. For the former (independents), it permits a much wider potential for actual, original creative expression, original voice and open-minded approach to everything including the story, pacing, effects, etc. BUT despite the so-called "advancements" in the process, which are enormous, each function still requires a talent for that function and this, most of us do not have in abundance. Most of us are pretty good at one or two of these processes, only passable at most, and hideously bad at some. The learning curve is steep. So, again, while there has been and will continue to be a general rise in original approaches, on an industry wide scale, "production value" will be spotty. So this sounds like rather bad news on both sides. However, audience expectations have radically changed as well. While treated to mega-budget fare which is often devoid of dramatic value, the audience also have and are growing up with the really poor, and still poor, experience of social media video. This is leading to a much, much wider tolerance for so-called "low production value" and a growing sensitivity to the original in terms of story. The value of "star" or "name" talent is dropping rapidly and seems to already have become irrelevant to some of us. Now all that is just off the cuff, but we talk about these things constantly among ourselves at the Independent Producers Guild, because our mandate is to address these exact issues,

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Your insights shed light on the complex dynamics within the film industry, differentiating between independent creators and studio-driven productions. The impact of corporate influences on studios, as you rightly point out, often results in cost-cutting measures that can compromise the creative process, leading to an overreliance on familiar formulas and clichés.

For independent creators, the flexibility to explore original and innovative ideas is a distinct advantage. However, as you emphasize, this comes with its own challenges, as each aspect of the filmmaking process requires a specific talent, and the learning curve can be steep. The trade-off between creative freedom and the need for specialized skills highlights the intricate balance independent creators must navigate.

The changing landscape of audience expectations, influenced by both mega-budget productions and the proliferation of content on social media, is a fascinating aspect you touch upon. The shifting emphasis from "production value" to the originality of the story indicates a significant evolution in audience preferences. The decreasing relevance of star or name talent adds another layer to this transformation, emphasizing a growing appreciation for substance over celebrity.

Your candid reflection on these industry challenges and discussions within the Independent Producers Guild highlights a commitment to addressing these issues head-on.

It's evident that the pursuit of creative excellence remains at the forefront, even amid the complexities and evolving nature of the film industry. These conversations are essential for fostering an environment that nurtures both artistic expression and industry sustainability.

I am here to foster discussion even if it may be a long response. Thanks for Sharing.

I think the most obvious question of "integrity" in the post process is when Producers begin using A.I. in post to inject a film with a ton of product placement that was never negotiated or talked about.

Suddenly signs and products are loaded into the backgrounds seamlessly. Profits are not shared and the entire film becomes a recoupment tool for advertising that is changed and manipulated based on the territory it's currently showing in. These are all things we need to put into contracts to protect ourselves from or share in the profits of.

Mario Leone Thank you! On changing audience, IMO it is a fundamental mistake to assume or assert, like the industry does, that audience has EVER cared much about name actors or production values, generally speaking. Consider that this attitude came about in the brick/mortar days of theatre and broadcast/cable television. In that situation, you are in a time-slot environment. Audience had to attend at a specific time or not see a show, and if they wanted to see two shows at the same time, they had to decide one or other other. Add to that the evolution of MPA market control, which depends upon larger budgets and massive marketing budgets to ensure that they squeeze lower budget fare out of screens. In such a case, a "name" actor is important because the studio says so and spends money to make it so. Same for the budget. Name and advertised budget are also short-hand for audiences to associate a good or bad flick in their mind. Today we are in an on-demand environment. We don't have to choose to see one and ignore the other, and we don't have to go out of our way to see a movie at a specific time. IMO the audience's true preferences, which admittedly are changing, simply don't support the idea that they care overmuch about either name talent of budget. In fact, quite the opposite. This has always been evident in certain genres, such as horror. Now it is becoming evidence across genres.

Your view highlights the changing dynamics in the entertainment industry, emphasizing the shift from traditional brick-and-mortar models to an on-demand environment.

In this digital age, audiences indeed have more flexibility and options, challenging the traditional importance placed on name actors and high production budgets.

The emphasis on studio-driven marketing and larger budgets might not hold the same sway in an era where audiences have the freedom to choose content based on their preferences. Another words taste are becoming more diverse.

The rise of on-demand platforms has allowed a broad range of content to find its audience, breaking away from the constraints of time frames and location-based viewing.

Genres like horror, traditionally less dependent on A-list actors or massive budgets, showcase how audience preferences can diverge from the industry’s historical emphasis on star power and production values. Platforms like Tubi are growing due to those same diverse tastes.

However, it’s essential to acknowledge that audience preferences can vary, and the industry is navigating a period of transition.

While the on-demand model provides more freedom, there’s still a coexistence of traditional and emerging trends.

As the landscape continues to evolve, understanding the nuanced interplay between audience preferences, content quality, and accessibility remains crucial for industry professionals. Interesting times we live in. Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg