Just a Thought

[James Steven Beverly]

Look, your looking at this like it's a eather/or situation, eather you do what I say or your fired. It's never like that. It's generally a colaberative situation. "Well what do you think or this might work better this way. We don't have that much money, your going to have to find annother way to get it across. We can't cut corners on this scene, it's too important.". Producers are not nessasarily ogres, they just have a different set of responsibilities than do many of the others on the set. A GOOD producer invests his ideas into a production and gives freedom to the director to bring HIS (the director's ) vision to the film while guarding the investment of those who have put money into the production. His job by nature is financial control but if he cannot understand, appreciate and contribute to the artistic colaberation of the film, he will not be a great producer because after all art is the product they're sellng and if you can't understand what it is, how can you make and sell it.

[Filip Plesha]

guarding the investment of those who have put money into the production

 

yes that's exactly my idea of what a producer does, and you call that art?

 

 

When you look back at famous budget-stretching movies from the past, the producers were always the ones who turned out be in the way of art

 

original Star Wars... Blade Runner...Alien 3 etc.

 

 

For example Alien 3 would have turned out to be a great movie, if they listened to David, which is now 15 years later clear, but back they just didn't trust him enough.

While it is a nice movie as it is, it's almost an orphan movie which nobody wants to claim because nobody is satisfied with it, exept when money is being collected then people are eager to claim it.

 

BR took 15 years to get into some shape, again because the producers misunderstood the intentions of Ridley, and marketed it as some kind of a cool Sci-fi action movie, which it wasn't, so naturally it was presented in the wrong light and there was a disaster. It took 15 years for the film to get closer to what it was supose to be.

Right now its percieved as what was supose to be, and is watched by pretty much the same people who like the book (androids), instead of Rambo audience of 80's

 

 

I know these people (producers) are taking great risks, and the above image was formed because

we only hear about producers either when they have success or when they "almost" stood in the way of a legent. We never heard about cases when they actually give to much freedom to the director who screws the whole thing up, which probably happens also.

But still, I don't think you can call them artists.

Their interest is to make a commercial film, sometimes it involves emulating art (sometimes arty stuff sells too), but emulating art is not art.

It's like making paintings for money using styles learned on art classes: it's not art, it's craft and bussines.

[Guest santo]

A long drawn out discussion, with some interesting points. However, regarding producers, the most important point that can be made isn't emphasized.

 

There is an enormous difference between an "executive producer" and a "producer". Please, whatever you do, do not confuse the two.

 

The Executive Producer is the money guy. The interference guy. The guy who wrecks so many films -- with noteable exceptions, there are always exceptions. This is the way it is most of the time. These are the guys with the title to be wary of if you are a filmmaker with a vision. They've got the money. Or they are assigned to your project after the fact by studios and broadcasters. These are the destroyers.

 

The Producer is a different person. They can be a good producer or a bad one, but they are not to be confused with the Executive Producer. A really good producer can rise to the level of a James B. Harris who produced Kubrick's first three great films. Working with the filmmaker making solid creative suggestions, protecting the vision, making sure things worked smooth while shooting, a sounding board during post with good creative suggestions, defending and promoting the work afterwards. A dream come true.

 

There is a big difference between an Executive Producer and a "real" Producer. Never forget that.

[James Steven Beverly]

Speilberg, Coppala, Scoresese, Hitchcock, Bogdonivitch, Scott (both), Lynch, Lean Cronenberg, Cassevetties, Capera, Nicoles, Corman, Altman, Kubrick, Fleming, Demille, Mel Brooks, Ang lee, Spike Lee, Cameron, Fleming, Wlyer, Soderbergh, the Coens, Tim Burton, Eastwood, and Lucas have all produced and I could go on and on, but, Enough said!

Edited March 14, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Brad Grimmett]

Speilberg, Coppala, Scoresese, Hitchcock, Bogdonivitch, Scott (both), Lynch, Lean Cronenberg, Cassevetties, Capera, Nicoles, Corman, Altman, Kubrick, Fleming, Demille, Mel Brooks, Ang lee, Spike Lee, Cameron, Fleming, Wlyer, Soderbergh, the Coens, Tim Burton, Eastwood, and Lucas have all produced and I could go on and on, but, Enough said!

So you're arguing that because these directors are artists, and they've produced films in the past, that producing must be an artform? What a ridiculous argument! Just because someone is an artist doesn't mean that everything they've ever done is art. You're saying that if a famous artist was a garbage man at some point, that his garbage collecting was art. It's just so circular and silly! And you're calling the people that disagree with this blind! Give me a break! It's obvious that you are just posting out of stubborness at this point, and you're making no sense, so I'm done responding to your posts about this.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

There are alot of very good producers out there. People that have a possitive effect on the artistic integrity of films. I'm not taking sides with this post, just wanted to stick up for peeps like Bob Evans, Saul Zaentz, and even those smaller films to their credit like the now deseased Debra Hill.

 

PS- I've already heard/read about Evans' worst half. He still kicks ass. :D

[James Steven Beverly]

So you're arguing that because these directors are artists, and they've produced films in the past, that producing must be an artform? What a ridiculous argument! Just because someone is an artist doesn't mean that everything they've ever done is art. You're saying that if a famous artist was a garbage man at some point, that his garbage collecting was art. It's just so circular and silly! And you're calling the people that disagree with this blind! Give me a break! It's obvious that you are just posting out of stubborness at this point, and you're making no sense, so I'm done responding to your posts about this.

 

You seem to be getting awfully personal about this. It's not stubborness at all. I've explained this 5 or 6 different ways any one of which is completely accurate and insightfull. Your just too pigheaded, narrowminded and ellistist to admit that what I've proven Producers can be artists so go on and live with your blinders on and go about your marry way thinking that noone but you can possible understand what it is to be an artist, it's no skin of my a** as they say. It's obvious no amount of logic no matter how well thought out or factual it is, could ever persuade you that you might be wrong about anything so I won't bother addressing your posts anymore bucause it's simply a waste of time and bandwidth and I have better thing to do then banter with a fool.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

There are alot of very good producers out there. People that have a possitive effect on the artistic integrity of films. I'm not taking sides with this post, just wanted to stick up for peeps like Bob Evans, Saul Zaentz, and even those smaller films to their credit like the now deseased Debra Hill.

 

PS- I've already heard/read about Evans' worst half. He still kicks ass. :D

 

 

I meant "deceased". I can't spell for s***! :P

[Filip Plesha]

There are alot of very good producers out there. People that have a possitive effect on the artistic integrity of films. I'm not taking sides with this post, just wanted to stick up for peeps like Bob Evans, Saul Zaentz, and even those smaller films to their credit like the now deseased Debra Hill.

 

PS- I've already heard/read about Evans' worst half. He still kicks ass. :D

 

 

Yes there are many good producers, and many of them have done nothing but helped the artistic visions of some directors. But being good at something does not make you an artist, not in the literal sense of the word.

[Hal Smith]

Yes there are many good producers, and many of them have done nothing but helped the artistic visions of some directors. But being good at something does not make you an artist, not in the literal sense of the word.

I think I've just figured out what's been bothering me about this thread's controversy concerning whether or not producers are "artists". A good or great producer isn't so much an artist as a muse - they encourage and nurture the artists but aren't artists themselves.

 

Edmond, OK

[James Steven Beverly]

Again, I will reitterate the obvious. Your definition of art is far too narrow and you definition of producer is far too limiting. Art can be expressed in countless ways from gardening to flying a plane, These seemingly unrelated pursuits have one commonality that make them into art, the individual expression with which each task is performed that sets it apart from others preforming the same task. Yes a producer does have to be a muse and a spoiler but that is not a difinitive enough description for what he does. His job covers every aspect of the film from buying the property to advertising the film for theaters and his input and creative ideas are required at ever point within that process.

 

The directors I listed before are not people that need money or would be involved in something concerning the film industry that did not allow them creative imput. A porducer has as much or more creative input by the decisions he makes, the vision of the finished product he decides on and the colaberation in expressing his ideas as does the cinematographer, the set designer, the costume designer or any one else who works closely with a director, yet noone here would dare say that a cinematographer wasn't an artist, you know better. Nor would they say a set designer or costumer wasn't an artist. So how you can say the person the director colaberates with most closely through out the pre-production, production and post production is not an artist is beyond me. It seem as obvious as seeing a hilside covered in trees and knowing that it's a forest, but I guess some people can't SEE the forest for the trees.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Max Jacoby]

I've explained this 5 or 6 different ways any one of which is completely accurate and insightfull.

I'm afraid I still don't get you point. as Brad pointed out your arguments just don't make any sense and are completely illogical.

[Dan Salzmann]

I agree with Max.

A good producer cares about making films as efficiently as possible.

Whether they are infomercials, made for TV movies, short films, independent features, music videos, Hollywood blockbusters or whatever.

The producer is obviously a vital role that requires all kinds of abilities.

Producer's are at best good craftspeople but not "artists".

That being said I don't think that "bling booty" rap videos are works of art either.

All the ringlights and Kinos and Fraser lenses and whatever else they drag out of the cupboards does not make it art.

Pure technique is not art.

Also I read a few pages back that someone called "Night Porter" a porn film. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard this week but it's only Wednesday!

[James Steven Beverly]

Well there's no real point in continuing this discussion. I have presented what I feel are well thought out, compelling arguments in support of my views on this subject. It is obvious that there will be no persuading some of you to agree with my position. That's fine, you have your beliefs and and have my expirence in this matter. I am sure that if you ever have the chance direct a profesional, well funded, production and work with a gifted producer those views will change. As it stands now this is just a waste of time, no offence, so I will leave your to your beliefs on this matter and wish you well in your endevours.

[Max Jacoby]

I am sure that if you ever have the chance direct a profesional, well funded, production and work with a gifted producer those views will change.

How condescending...

 

As if none of us had ever worked on a 'professional, well funded production'.

[James Steven Beverly]

The only thing I see you've directed is 3 shorts, so I would hardly call you an expert. You seem to want to turn this into a street brawl, but I refuse to play that game with you. You do this on a lot of my posts so obviously you seem to have some problem with me. If so fine. Say whatever you like. I got drawn into a pissing match once before on this board and have no intention of letting that happen again. I am not going to trade personal insults with you. You find my post condecinding, so be it. You win. Does that make you feel better?

[Daniel Stigler]

The intention is what defines art in the end.

 

 

Art is entertainment. But entertainment isn't always art.

[Max Jacoby]

The only thing I see you've directed is 3 shorts, so I would hardly call you an expert.

And what pray tell have you done?

 

You conveniently forget the dozen feature films that I have worked, including some quite big and/or successful ones. I've had plenty of contact with producers, some of whom have become friends, and do know quite well how a production is run and what 'they' do.

[James Steven Beverly]

Art is entertainment. But entertainment isn't always art.

 

Agreed and not all producers are artists but there are some that are. That's really my point when you boil it all down.

[Brad Grimmett]

And what pray tell have you done?

 

You conveniently forget the dozen feature films that I have worked, including some quite big and/or successful ones. I've had plenty of contact with producers, some of whom have become friends, and do know quite well how a production is run and what 'they' do.

Max,

Obviously we all know that you're a professional, and we know what kinds of projects you've worked on, because you're willing to use your real name. But Capt. Video doesn't use his real name.....could it be because he has no professional experience? Who knows.....

I'll be curious to see if Capt. is willing to use a real name and prove that he's the "expert" he claims to be.

[James Steven Beverly]

to Paraphrase-The people came to Mohammad and said "Master is it true you can move the mountain?" Mohammad said "Yes it is true." The people said "Then move the mountain so that those who doubt you will believe." Mohammad said "When you you know you can move the mountain, there is no need to move it."

 

I don't have to prove anything to you. If my arguments arn't enough, what good would giving you my credits do? Would they make what I say more truthful or accurate? Believe what ever you want to about me. I know everything I've stated is correct and verifiable. I really have nothing more to say on this subject.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Daniel Sheehy]

I don't have to prove anything to you. If my arguments arn't enough, what good would giving you my credits do? Would they make what I say more truthful or accurate?

 

No, but they might lend credibility to your statements.

 

All of you are simply looking at "art" in too narrowly defined terms. There is an eastern philosophy that essentally states anything can be lifted to an art form if done with the sole of an artist.

 

This is the root of your disagreement. Obviously not everyone subscribes to your eastern philosophy.

You can not agree on the definition of art and therefore will not be able to agree on the definition of an artist! :P

 

And having followed this thread, I can see that no one is going to be persuaded to change their opinion. :blink:

[Jonathan Spear]

""to Paraphrase-The people came to Mohammad and said "Master is it true you can move the mountain?" Mohammad said "Yes it is true." The people said "Then move the mountain so that those who doubt you will believe." Mohammad said "When you you know you can move the mountain, there is no need to move it.""

 

See, that pisses me off. Don't use an example like that. It makes no sense to begin with. And that's exactly what's wrong with the world today -- if you're running around bragging to people that you can move mountains you'd better be damn ready to prove it!

 

Quoting religious text (from any religion) should never be used to make a point.. especially if it's a truthful, accurate or sane point being made.

[Filip Plesha]

should never be used

 

sounds a lot like a religious dogmatic rule

[Jonathan Spear]

"""sounds a lot like a religious dogmatic rule"""

 

Good point.

 

Correction: Please, for the love of God, try not to use...

 

 

 

 

Better?

 

:D